Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Measuring serum and drainage fluid interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α levels for early detection of infectious complications after minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) are inflammatory cytokines produced in response to biological invasion or infection. Their levels are elevated in the blood and locally. We examined whether measuring IL-6 and TNF-α levels in serum or drainage fluid on postoperative day (POD) 1 could detect infectious complications after minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer.

METHODS

This cohort study included 205 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer between November 2020 and July 2023. We measured serum and drainage fluid IL-6 and TNF-α levels on POD 1 after gastrectomy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created to compare the diagnostic values of each cytokine and serum C-reactive protein levels for detecting postoperative infectious complications.

RESULTS

IL-6 and TNF-α levels in the serum or drainage fluid were significantly higher in patients with an infectious complication. In addition, drainage fluid IL-6 levels were significantly different in patients with versus without intra-abdominal abscess. In the ROC curve analysis, serum and drainage fluid IL-6 had the highest AUC values for any infectious complication and intra-abdominal abscess, respectively. POD 1 serum IL-6 level above 47 pg/mL could detect any infectious complication with sensitivity of 74.1 % and specificity of 71.8 %. POD 1 drainage fluid IL-6 level above 14,750 pg/mL had 100 % sensitivity for detecting intra-abdominal abscess with specificity of 56.0 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of IL-6 levels in blood and drainage fluid on POD 1 is valuable for early detection of postoperative infectious complications or intra-abdominal abscess after gastric cancer surgery.

Prophylactic drainage versus non-drainage following gastric cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic drainage (PD) in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) is not well-established. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between the PD and non-drainage (ND) in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed up to December 2022. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included and meta-analyzed separately. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022371102.

RESULTS

Overall, 7 RCTs (783 patients) and 14 observational studies (4359 patients) were ultimately included. Data from RCTs indicated that patients in the ND group had a lower total complications rate (OR = 0.68; 95%CI:0.47-0.98; P = 0.04; I² = 0%), earlier time to soft diet (MD =  - 0.27; 95%CI: - 0.55 to 0.00; P = 0.05; I² = 0%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD =  - 0.98; 95%CI: - 1.71 to - 0.26; P = 0.007; I² = 40%). While other outcomes including anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, pancreatic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, surgical-site infection, pulmonary infection, need for additional drainage, reoperation rate, readmission rate, and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analyses on observational studies showed good agreement with the pooled results from RCTs, with higher statistical power.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis suggests that routine use of PD may not be necessary and even harmful in GC patients following gastrectomy. However, well-designed RCTs with risk-stratified randomization are still needed to validate the results of our study.

Is Prophylactic Cervical Drainage Effective in Patients Undergoing McKeown Esophagectomy Reconstructed Through the Retrosternal Route with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy?

BACKGROUND

McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for oncologic esophagectomy. A cervical drain is placed in cases after modern two-field lymph node dissection (M2FD) to provide information on anastomotic leakage. However, the necessity of prophylactic cervical drainage during surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of cervical drainage in patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy with M2FD.

METHODS

A total of 293 patients underwent McKeown surgery with two-field lymphadenectomy at our institute between January 2013 and December 2019. We compared the day of drain removal, amount of drainage volume, and the appearance of drainage fluid between patients with and without anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route is 203 patients (69.3%) of all. Nineteen patients (6.5%) experienced anastomotic leakage. The amount of cervical drain discharge was comparable between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. In addition, no purulent or salivary discharge was observed in patients with anastomotic leakage. There was no difference in the median day of drain removal between the groups. The initial clinical findings for the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage were surgical site infection in 10 (52.6%), fever in 5 (26.3%), prolonged inflammation in a blood test in 3 (15.8%), and bloody discharge from the chest tube in 1 (5.3%). There was no mortality due to any cause.

CONCLUSION

A prophylactic cervical drain may not be mandatory in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route with two-field lymphadenectomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: operation-related factors

Background: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program, which has been recently introduced in the field of perioperative care, represents a multimodal strategy to attenuate the loss, and improve the restoration, of functional capacity after surgery. This program aims to reduce morbidity and enhance recovery by reducing surgical stress, optimizing pain control, and facilitating early resumption of an oral diet and early mobilization. Considering this perspective, protocols for enhanced recovery should include comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Appropriate protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and thereby reduce the duration of hospitalization.Current Concepts: In major abdominal surgeries, the recommended ERAS protocols involve common items such as preoperative counseling, preoperative optimization, prehabilitation, preoperative nutrition, fasting and carbohydrate loading, bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical access, drainage, nasogastric intubation, urinary drainage, early mobilization and prevention of postoperative ileus, postoperative glycemic control, and postoperative nutritional care. These items have been briefly reviewed with the relevant evidence.Discussion and Conclusion: ERAS is a comprehensive and evidence-based guideline for optimal perioperative care. Although a number of ERAS items still require high-level evidence through well-designed randomized controlled trials, the ERAS guidelines can serve as adequate recommendations for our practice. Thus, these items can be introduced and adopted with evidence. In addition, it is important to remove items that are not supported by evidence from routine procedures.

Nutritional management of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer based on the concept of rapid rehabilitation

As a common malignant tumor, patients with gastric cancer (GC) are prone to malnutrition during the development and treatment of the disease. Fast track surgery (FTS), as a perioperative medical concept based on evidence-based medicine, plays an important role in nutrition management, including preoperative malnutrition screening and treatment, preoperative nutritional management, postoperative early oral feeding, accelerated promotion of gastrointestinal function recovery, and nutritional support. Based on a series of small sample studies, the safety and importance of FTS in laparoscopic nutrition management of GC are gradually emerging, but clinical implementation is difficult. This article will review the research progress of FTS in the field of laparoscopic nutrition management of GC in the past decade.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Drain Placement in Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of prophylactic drain placement in laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). Ninety-four patients with gastric cancer who underwent LTG between December 2007 and December 2014 were enrolled in this study. A tube drain was placed in 29 patients after considering it necessary by operators, whereas no tube drain was placed in remaining patients. All patients were classified into either the drain or the no-drain group and were investigated for clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes. Overall, complications occurred in 15 patients and were not significantly different between the drain and no-drain groups [5 (17.2%) versus 10 (15.4%) patients]. No significant difference was observed in median duration of postoperative hospital stay between the drain and no-drain groups (12 versus 12 days). There was no significant difference in the duration of hospital stay regardless of the presence of drains in both groups of patients who developed complications (with drain: 27 days versus without drain: 21.5 days) and those who did not develop complications (with drain: 12 days versus without drain: 12 days). In conclusion, on the basis of the results of this study, routine prophylactic drain placement in LTG may not be necessary because it does not offer any additional benefits for patients.

Is abdominal drainage after open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis beneficial or waste of money? A single centre retrospective cohort study

Background

Appendicitis is a medical condition that causes painful inflammation of the appendix. For acute appendicitis, appendectomy is immediately required as any delay may lead to serious complications such as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis with or without localized abscess formation. Patients who had appendectomy for complicated appendicitis are more prone to develop post-operative complications such as peritoneal abscess or wound infection. Sometimes, abdominal drainage is used to reduce these complications. However, the advantage of the abdominal drainage to minimize post-operative complications is not clear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of abdominal drainage after open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (perforated appendicitis with localized abscess formation only) can prevent or significantly reduce post-operative complications such as intra-peritoneal abscess formation or wound infection.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, files and notes were reviewed retrospectively for patients who had open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (perforated appendicitis with localized abscess formation only) and who had already been admitted and discharged from the surgical wards of Kerbala medical university/Imam Hussein medical city hospital/Kerbala/Iraq. Patients were selected according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups; drainage and non-drainage groups. The drainage group had intra-abdominal drain inserted after the surgery, while the non-drainage group had no drain placed post-operatively. A comparison between both groups was done in terms of these parameters; (i) the development of post operative intra-peritoneal abscess and or wound infection. (ii) The length and cost of hospital stay. (iii) The mortality outcomes. Statistical analysis was done using Pearson Chi-square test, Independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U Test.

Results

Of 227 patients with open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, 114 had received abdominal drain after the surgery. Fifty out of 114 patients (43.9%) with abdominal drainage developed post-operative intra-peritoneal abscess (abdominal or pelvic) while 53 out of 113 patients (46.9%) without drainage developed the same complication (P = 0.65). It was also revealed that for patients with drainage, 42 patients (36.8%) had post-operative wound infection, whereas this number was 38 (33.6%) for patients without drainage (P = 0.61). On the other hand, the patients with drain had significantly longer length of hospital stay (mean length of stay: 4.99 days versus 2.12 days, P < 0.001) and significantly higher cost (median cost per patient: $120 versus $60, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Installation of abdominal drainage after open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis did not bring any considerable advantage in terms of prevention or significant reduction of post-operative intra-peritoneal abscess and wound infection. Rather, it lengthened the hospital stay and doubled the cost of operation.

•

The use of abdominal drain after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis does not bring any considerable advantage in terms of prevention or significant reduction of post-operative intra-peritoneal abscess and wound infection.

•

Insertion of drain lengthens hospital stay and doubles the cost of operation.

•

No mortality complications had been identified in both drain and non drain groups.

Savings from reducing low-value general surgical interventions

Background

Finding opportunities for improving efficiency is important, given the pressure on national health budgets. Identifying and reducing low-value interventions that deliver little benefit is key. A systematic literature evaluation was done to identify low-value interventions in general surgery, with further assessment of their cost.

Methods

A multiplatform method of identifying low value interventions was undertaken, including a broad literature search, a targeted database search, and opportunistic sampling. The results were then stratified by impact, assessing both frequency and cost.

Results

Seventy-one low-value general surgical procedures were identified, of which five were of high frequency and high cost (highest impact), 22 were of high cost and low frequency, 23 were of low cost and high frequency, and 21 were of low cost and low frequency (lowest impact). Highest impact interventions included inguinal hernia repair in minimally symptomatic patients, inappropriate gastroscopy, interval cholecystectomy, CT to diagnose appendicitis and routine endoscopy in those who had CT-confirmed diverticulitis. Their estimated cost was €153 383 953.

Conclusion

Low-value services place a burden on health budgets. Stopping only five high-volume, high-cost general surgical procedures could save the National Health Service €153 million per annum.

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)/fast-track surgery in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with conventional care in gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Search strategy from Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane library and reference lists was performed. The collected studies were randomized controlled trials and published only in English, and undergoing ERAS in gastrectomy for gastric cancer from January 1994 to August 2016.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies including 801 patients were included. There were 399 cases in the ERAS and 402 cases in the conventional care groups. Meta-analysis showed that time to first passage of flatus (weighted mean difference (WMD) -14.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.31 to -8.83, p<0.00001), level of C-reaction protein (WMD -19.46; 95 % CI -21.74 to -17.18, p<0.00001) and interleukin-6 (WMD-32.16; 95 % CI -33.86 to -30.46,p<0.00001) on postoperative days, postoperative hospital stay (WMD -1.85; 95 % CI -2.35 to -1.35, p<0.00001), hospital charge (WMD -0.94, 95 % CI, -1.40 to 0.49, p<0.0001) were significantly decreased for ERAS, but increased readmission rates (odds ratio (OR), 3.42, 95 % CI, 1.43 to 8.21, P=0.006). There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, operation time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, duration of foley catheter and postoperative complications (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS is considered to be safe and effective in gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Further larger, multicenter and randomized trials were needed to beresearched.

The Trend of Perioperative Care of Gastrectomy in Kanagawa, Japan

Comprehensive surveys on perioperative care in Japan, including that in community or private hospitals, have not been reported, and current trends remain unclear. The present survey was designed to investigate current routines for perioperative care in patients who undergo surgery for gastric cancer in Kanagawa, Japan. A questionnaire was designed specifically to obtain information on perioperative routines in patients with gastric cancer throughout Kanagawa. A total of 55 hospitals in Kanagawa responded. Most hospitals perform antimicrobial prophylaxis every 3 hours intraoperatively, use a postoperative drainage tube, use a urinary catheter for only 2 days after surgery, administer epidural anesthesia, and encourage early mobilization. Liquid intake until 3 hours before surgery is not allowed in most hospitals. Most hospitals do not routinely provide preoperative nutrition support, perform bowel mechanical preparation, administer prophylaxis against thromboembolism, place a postoperative nasogastric tube, attempt to maintain normovolemia, or administer planned nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The day of restarting drinking or eating varies considerably. Many elements of perioperative management, especially postoperative oral nutrition, have yet to be standardized for patients with gastric cancer in Japan. There are great gaps between clinical practice and evidence-based practice in fluid management and drain usage.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Predictive value of drain amylase content for peripancreatic inflammatory fluid collections after laparoscopic (assisted) distal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic (assisted) distal gastrectomy (LDG) with radical lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer has been widely conducted, particularly in the Far East. Peripancreatic inflammatory fluid collection (PIFC) is a serious and frequent postoperative complication after LDG for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of drain amylase content (D-AMY) for clinically relevant PIFC after LDG.

METHODS

Two hundred and sixty-four patients who underwent LDG with prophylactic drains were enrolled. The predictive value of D-AMY on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD 3 in the diagnosis of PIFC was evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty (7.6 %) patients experienced postoperative PIFC. Area under the curve in terms of receiver operating characteristics curve analysis of D-AMY on POD 1 was 0.801, and the optimal cutoff value for prediction of PIFC was 904 IU/l, with 98.2 % negative predictive value. Another cutoff was proposed as 4078 IU/l, with 92.2 % specificity. Multivariable analyses identified D-AMY on POD 1 ≥900 and ≥4000 IU/l as independent diagnostic factors for PIFC. Among patients at high risk of PIFC (D-AMY on POD 1 ≥900 IU/l), those who on POD 3 retained D-AMY value in excess of 31.2 % of the D-AMY value on POD 1 were more likely to experience PIFC compared with those with a pronounced decrease in D-AMY.

CONCLUSIONS

D-AMY on POD 1 serves as a predictive factor for clinically relevant PIFC after LDG. Time-dependent changes in D-AMY can also be used for determining management of drains in patients at high risk of PIFC.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included two trials involving 316 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 156) and the no drainage group (N = 160) after pancreatic surgery. Both trials were at high risk of bias. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (drains 1.3%; no drains 3.8%; RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 3.94; two studies; very low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; very low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (8.3% versus 14.4%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two studies), wound infection (10.9% versus 11.9%; RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.86; two studies), morbidity (67.3% versus 65.0%; RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; two studies), length of hospital stay (MD -0.97 days; 95% CI -1.41 to -0.53; two studies), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (6.3% versus 6.4%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.32; two studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Type of drainThere were no randomized controlled trials comparing one type of drain versus another. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in the mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days; 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that early removal may be superior to late removal for patients with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Drainoscopy: a doorway to the abdomen in the post-surgical patient

The ability to optically visualize the abdominal cavity in the post-surgical patient can prove to be invaluable, particularly when imaging studies and exam findings can be difficult to interpret. Post-surgical drains are often used and provide a window into the abdominal cavity. In this proof-of-concept study, it is demonstrated that an ordinary drain can be used as a point of access and hence a doorway into the abdominal cavity. This technique has been termed drainoscopy, and the approach is demonstrated with video supplement.

Value of Peritoneal Drain Placement After Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-institutional Analysis from the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative

BACKGROUND

The effect of routine drainage after abdominal surgery with enteric anastomoses is controversial. In particular, the role of peritoneal drain (PD) placement after total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma is not well established.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) at seven institutions from the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative, from 2000 to 2012, were identified. The association of PD placement with postoperative outcomes was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 344 patients were identified and 253 (74 %) patients received a PD. The anastomotic leak rate was 9 %. Those with PD placement had similar American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, TNM stage, and the need for additional organ resection when compared with their counterparts. No difference was observed in the rate of any complication (54 vs. 48 %; p = 0.45), major complication (25 vs. 24 %; p = 0.90), or 30-day mortality (7 vs. 4 %; p = 0.51) between the two groups. In addition, no difference in anastomotic leak (9 vs. 10 %; p = 0.90), the need for secondary drainage (10 vs. 9 %; p = 0.92), or reoperation (13 vs. 8 %; p = 0.28) was identified. On multivariate analysis, PD placement was not associated with decreased postoperative complications. Subset analysis, stratified by patients who did not undergo concomitant pancreatectomy (n = 319) or those who experienced anastomotic leak (n = 31), similarly demonstrated no association of PD placement with reduced complications or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

PD placement after total gastrectomy for GAC is associated with neither a decrease in the frequency and severity of adverse postoperative outcomes, including anastomotic leak and mortality, nor a decrease in the need for secondary drainage procedures or reoperation. Routine use of PDs is not warranted.

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to February 2014), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to February 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials involving 453 patients with complicated appendicitis who were randomised to the drainage group (n = 228) and the no drainage group (n = 225) after emergency open appendectomies. All of the trials were at a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection. The hospital stay was longer in the drainage group than in the no drainage group (MD 2.04 days; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.62) (34.4% increase of an 'average' hospital stay).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Abdominal drainage after an emergency open appendectomy may be associated with delayed hospital discharge for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of eliminating routine drain placement in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) on the risk of postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An experienced single surgeon performed RALP on 651 consecutive patients at our institution from 2008 to 2012. Before August 2011, RALP with or without PLND included a routine peritoneal drain placed during surgery. Thereafter, routine intraoperative placement of drains was omitted, except for intraoperatively noted anastomotic leakage. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare complication rates between study periods and the actual drain placement status after adjusting for standard prespecified covariates.

RESULTS

Most patients (92%) did not have ≥grade 2 complications after surgery and only two patients (0.3%) experienced a grade 4 complication. The absolute adjusted risk of a grade 2-5 complication was 0.9% greater among those treated before August 2011 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3%-5.1%; p=0.7), while absolute adjusted risk of a grade 3-5 complication was 2.8% less (-2.8%; 95% CI-5.3%-0.1%; p=0.061). RESULTS based on drain status were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine peritoneal drain placement following RALP with PLND did not confer a significant advantage in terms of postoperative complications. Further data are necessary to confirm that it is safe to omit drains in most patients.

Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

Application of evidence-based perioperative care protocols reduces complication rates, accelerates recovery and shortens hospital stay. Presently, there are no comprehensive guidelines for perioperative care for gastrectomy.

METHODS

An international working group within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society assembled an evidence-based comprehensive framework for optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing gastrectomy. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system and were discussed until consensus was reached within the group. The quality of evidence was rated 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low'. Recommendations were graded as 'strong' or 'weak'.

RESULTS

The available evidence has been summarized and recommendations are given for 25 items, eight of which contain procedure-specific evidence. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The present evidence-based framework provides comprehensive advice on optimal perioperative care for the patient undergoing gastrectomy and facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomized trials for further research.

A prospective randomized study to assess the optimal duration of intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis in elective gastric cancer surgery

The duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis in gastric cancer surgery is not yet established. This prospective randomized study was performed to confirm the noninferiority of single-dose versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis in terms of the incidence of surgical-site infection in gastric cancer surgery. Three hundred twenty-five patients undergoing elective resection for gastric cancer were randomized to receive only single-dose cefazolin (1 g) during surgery (single-dose group) or an additional 5 doses every 12 hours postoperatively (multiple-dose group). The overall incidence of surgical-site infections was 9.1% in the single-dose group and 6.2% in the multiple-dose group [difference (95% confidence interval): -2.9% (-5.9%-0.0%)]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified blood loss, being overweight, and advanced age as significant independent risk factors for surgical-site infection. Single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis seemed to be acceptable, and choosing multiple-dose prophylaxis may have little impact on the prevention of surgical-site infections in elective gastric cancer surgery.

Fast-track surgery in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Fast-track surgery aims to attenuate the surgical stress response, reduce complications, and shorten hospital stay. The goal of the present meta-analysis is to assess the safety and effectiveness of fast-track surgery in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with conventional perioperative care.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of the identified studies were searched to identify randomized clinical trials that compared fast-track surgery with conventional perioperative care in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 400 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis shows that postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.87 days, 95 % confidence interval (CI), -2.46 to -1.28 days, P < 0.00001), time to first passage of flatus (WMD -0.71 days, 95 % CI, -1.03 to -0.39 days, P < 0.0001), and hospital costs (WMD -505.87 dollars, 95 % CI, -649.91 to -361.84 dollars, P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced for fast-track surgery. No significant differences were found for readmission rates (relative risk (RR), 1.97 95 % CI, 0.37 to 10.64, P = 0.43) and total postoperative complications (RR, 0.99 95 % CI, 0.56 to 1.76, P = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track surgery is safe and effective in gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Further randomized trials are needed to strengthen the conclusions.

Drainage by urostomy bag after blockage of abdominal drain in patients with cirrhosis undergoing hepatectomy

Abdominal drainage was previously recommended as a post-hepatectomy procedure for patients with cirrhosis. This report introduces a simple technique that prevents leakage of ascitic fluid after cirrhotic hepatectomy complicated by blockage of the abdominal drain. In 59 patients who had had cirrhotic hepatectomy complicated by leakage of ascites in the drain site after drainage removal between January 2001 and April 2011, 31 underwent suture ligation (sutured group) and 28 were given urostomy bag at the abdominal drainage site (drainage group). The mean length of postoperative hospital stay in the drainage group was shorter than in the sutured group (16.11+/-2.61 vs 34.23+/-4.86 days, P=0.000). Meanwhile, the drainage group showed decreased postoperative complications, including leakage of ascites, wound infection, and collection of ascites. Drainage by urostomy bag can prevent prolonged leakage of ascitic fluid after the blockage of abdominal drains in patients undergoing cirrhotic hepatectomy.

[Significance of drains in surgery]

Placing drains is one the most common procedures following operations in surgical disciplines. The indication for placing a drain is, however, usually based on a traditional belief rather than being evidence-based. This paper presents an overview of the literature regarding the indications and the evidence level for placing drains following operations in visceral, vascular, thoracic and orthopeedic surgery as well as traumatology. In visceral surgery the indications for placing drains could be clarified over the past decades but in other surgical fields the level of evidence needs further investigation and clarification through future studies. The available data suggest that in most cases a prophylactic drainage can be avoided. In addition, drains may lead to increased morbidity and higher treatment costs.