Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Feasibility of Narrow-Spectrum Antimicrobial Agents for Post-Operative Intra-Abdominal Infections After Gastrectomy

Introduction: Recently, antimicrobial resistance has received considerable attention. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents are recommended as the initial therapy for post-operative intra-abdominal infections. However, at our institution, we have adopted a tactic of initially treating post-operative intra-abdominal complications with relatively narrow-spectrum antimicrobial agents, such as second-generation cephalosporins. In the present study, we aimed to retrospectively analyze the use of antimicrobial agents and the resulting treatment outcomes in patients with intra-abdominal complications after gastrectomy at our facility. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients treated with antibiotic agents for intra-abdominal infectious complications after gastrectomy between 2011 and 2021. We determined the proportion of "initial treatment failures" associated with the initial administration of antibiotic agents for post-operative intra-abdominal complications. Results: Post-operative intra-abdominal infections were observed in 29 patients. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents were not administered. We successfully treated 19 patients. Initial treatment failure was observed in 10 patients, of whom five experienced failure due to bacterial resistance to the initial antimicrobial agent. All 10 patients who experienced initial treatment failure were discharged after drainage procedures or other treatments. There were no deaths due to post-operative complications. Cefmetazole was used as the initial antimicrobial agent in 27 of the 29 patients. Conclusions: Considering that all patients with post-gastrectomy intra-abdominal infections were successfully treated using relatively narrow-spectrum antimicrobial agents, and initial treatment failure due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens was 17.2%, the use of narrow-range antimicrobial agents for intra-abdominal infections after gastrectomy can be deemed appropriate.

Digestive cancer surgery in low-mid income countries: analysis of postoperative mortality and complications in a single-center study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze postoperative and 90-day morbidity and mortality and their risk factors in all digestive cancer curative intent resections of a single digestive surgical department in a low-mid income country.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent a surgical resection for digestive cancer with a curative intent between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, were included. This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective cancer surgery database managed during the period. Patterns and factors associated with increased morbidity and mortality were analyzed and presented in tabular and descriptive forms.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were included, 38 (50%) were men with a mean age of 59 years (±13.5). Forty patients (52.63%) had tumors locally advanced, staged CT3-CT4 on preoperative imagery. Thirty-three of our population (43.42%) had laparoscopic surgery (conversion rate at 12.12%). In immediate preoperative, the morbidity rate was 36.84%; among each, 7 patients (9.21%) had serious complications (>2 Clavien-Dindo grade), and mortality rate was 5.26%. At 90 days after surgery, morbidity remained the same, and mortality increased to 7.9%. Risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality were female gender, obesity, high levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, hypoalbuminemia, laparotomy approach, hand sewn anastomosis, prolonged operating time, and wide drainage (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides figures on mortality and morbidity related to digestive cancer curative surgery in a low-mid income country digestive department and discusses risk factors increasing postoperative complications and death.

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.

Prophylactic Drain Versus No Drain in Curative Gastric Cancer Surgery-A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols has questioned the placement of prophylactic drain after curative gastrectomy. A 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis did not find convincing evidence of routine drain placement in gastrectomy, but the quality of evidence was questioned. The present study compared short-term outcomes of prophylactic drain placement versus no drain in gastrectomy.

METHODOLOGY

The study is a prospective, non-inferiority, and randomized controlled trial. Histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach undergoing curative gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy was included in the study. Randomization was done intra-operatively. The primary outcome was a postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included the return of bowel function, achieving adequate enteral feeding, re-surgery, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-seven patients were registered, of which 108 patients underwent curative surgery, and were randomized to 54 patients in each group. The median age was 55 years (range: 23-78) and 58.5 years (range: 35-80) in the drain and no drain group. No significant difference was noticed in primary or secondary outcomes in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Avoid placing a prophylactic drain is not inferior to drain placement following gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for stomach adenocarcinoma. So, routine prophylactic drain placement can be avoided.

RCTs in der Pankreaschirurgie der letzten 10 Jahre – ein Update

Randomisiert kontrollierte Studien (RCT) stellen eine der wichtigsten Quellen neuer Evidenz für die Behandlung insbesondere onkologischer Patienten dar. Insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der Pankreaschirurgie, wo Komplikationen vergleichsweise häufig und schwerwiegend sind, sind innovative operativ-technische wie auch periinterventionelle Innovationen gefragt, die in der Lage sind, Morbidität und Mortalität zu reduzieren. Trotz der mannigfaltigen methodischen Herausforderungen bei der Durchführung chirurgischer RCTs konnten in den letzten 10 Jahren große und wissenschaftlich hochwertige Studien verzeichnet werden.

Dieser Review gibt einen Überblick über wichtige, bereits abgeschlossene und publizierte, aber auch über interessante und wichtige ausstehende RCTs in der Pankreaschirurgie.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Reduces the Rate of Surgical Site Infection in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Surgical site infection occurs with high frequency in gastrointestinal surgery, contributing to the high incidence of morbidity and mortality. The accepted practice worldwide for the prevention of surgical site infection is providing single- or multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis. However, most suitable antibiotic and optimal duration of prophylaxis are still debated. The aim of the systematic review is to assess the efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis in controlling surgical site infection rate following esophagogastric surgery. PubMed and Cochrane databases were systematically searched until 31 October 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing different antimicrobial regimens in prevention surgical site infections. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods. Overall, eight studies concerning gastric surgery and one study about esophageal surgery met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were detected between single- and multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis. Most trials assessed the performance of cephalosporins or inhibitor of bacterial beta-lactamase. Antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) is effective in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. Multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis is not recommended for patients undergoing gastric surgery. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial prophylaxis in esophageal cancer patients.

Prophylactic drains in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: are they always necessary?

Prophylactic drains have always been a useful tool to detect early complications and prevent postoperative fluid collections, particularly in gastrointestinal surgery. Recently, the utilization of such drains has been debated, due to mounting evidence that they could be harmful rather than beneficial. Based on recent published articles, Liu et al reported that the routine use of prophylactic drains in total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy might not be necessary for all patients. Herein, we express our opinion regarding this interesting publication.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.

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

In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018. 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 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 intraperitoneal abscess after appendectomy (irrespective of open or laparoscopic) for complicated appendicitis; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and three trials registers on 24 February 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing emergency open or laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence certainty. We included intraperitoneal abscess as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were wound infection, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Use of drain versus no drain We included six RCTs (521 participants) comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in participants undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The majority of participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of abdominal drainage versus no drainage on intraperitoneal abscess at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or wound infection at 30 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no-drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Abdominal drainage may increase 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity; RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital stay by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to no drainage. The outcomes hospital costs, pain, and quality of life were not reported in any of the included studies. There were no RCTs comparing the use of drain versus no drain in participants undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Open drain versus closed drain There were no RCTs comparing open drain versus closed drain for complicated appendicitis. Early versus late drain removal There were no RCTs comparing early versus late drain removal for complicated appendicitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the currently available evidence is low to very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to the no-drainage group are based on low-certainty evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement with the use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 recruited participants. Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Utility of Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADiGe) Trial: study protocol for a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic use of abdominal drain in gastrectomy has been questioned in the last 15 years, and a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis on four RCTs concluded that there was no convincing evidence to the routine drain placement in gastrectomy. Nevertheless, the authors evidenced the moderate/low quality of the included studies and highlighted how 3 out of 4 came from Eastern countries. After 2015, only retrospective studies have been published, all with inconsistent results.

METHODS

ADiGe (Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy) Trial is a multicenter prospective randomized non-inferiority trial with a parallel design. It aimed to verify whether avoiding routine use of abdominal drain is burdened with complications, particularly an increase in postoperative invasive procedures. Patients with gastric cancer, scheduled for subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent, are eligible for inclusion, irrespective of previous oncological treatment. The primary composite endpoint is reoperation or percutaneous drainage procedures within 30 postoperative days. The primary analysis will verify whether the incidence of the primary composite endpoint is higher in the experimental arm, avoiding routine drain placement, than control arm, undergoing prophylactic drain placement, in order to falsify or support the null hypothesis of inferiority. Secondary endpoints assessed for superiority are overall morbidity and mortality, Comprehensive Complications Index, incidence and time for diagnosis of anastomotic and duodenal leaks, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. Assuming one-sided alpha of 5%, and cumulative incidence of the primary composite endpoint of 6.4% in the control arm and 4.2% in the experimental one, 364 patients allow to achieve 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin difference between the arm proportions of 3.6%. Considering a 10% drop-out rate, 404 patients are needed. In order to have a balanced percentage between total and subtotal gastrectomy, recruitment will end at 202 patients for each type of gastrectomy. The surgeon and the patient are blinded until the end of the operation, while postoperative course is not blinded to the patient and caregivers.

DISCUSSION

ADiGe Trial could contribute to critically re-evaluate the role of prophylactic drain in gastrectomy, a still widely used procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered (last updated on 29 October 2020) at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04227951 .

Advances in the surgical management of gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer

Since Theodore Billroth and Cesar Roux perfected the methods of post-gastrectomy reconstruction in the late 19^th century, surgical management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancer has made incremental progress. The majority of patients with localized disease are treated with perioperative combination chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Staging laparoscopy before initiation of treatment or before surgical resection has improved staging accuracy and can drastically inform treatment decisions. The longstanding and contentious debate on the optimal extent of lymph node dissection for gastric cancer appears to have settled in favor of D2 dissection with the recently published 15-year follow-up of the Dutch randomized trial. Minimally invasive gastric and gastroesophageal resections are performed routinely in most centers affording faster recovery and equivalent oncologic outcomes. Pylorus-preserving distal (central) gastrectomy has emerged as a less invasive, function-preserving option for T1N0 middle-third gastric cancers, while randomized data on its oncologic adequacy are pending. Multi-visceral resections and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been utilized selectively for patients with locally advanced tumors who have demonstrated disease control on preoperative chemotherapy. This review summarizes the current standard of surgical care for gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancer as well as highlights recent and upcoming advances to the field.

Abdominal Drainage in the Prevention and Management of Major Intra-Abdominal Complications after Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma

Purpose

The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage in total gastrectomy is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of abdominal drainage in the prevention and management of major intra-abdominal complications after total gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 499 patients who underwent total gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma in a high-volume institution. The patients were divided into drainage and non-drainage groups and compared for the development and management of major intra-abdominal complications, including anastomotic leak, abdominal bleeding, abdominal infection, and pancreatic fistulas.

Results

The drainage group included 388 patients and the non-drainage group included 111 patients. The 2 groups showed no significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics or operative procedures, except for more frequent D2 lymphadenectomies in the drainage group. After surgery, the overall morbidity (drainage group vs. non-drainage group: 24.7% vs. 28.8%, P=0.385) and incidence of major intra-abdominal complications (6.4% vs. 6.3%, P=0.959) did not significantly differ between the two groups. The non-drainage group showed no significant increase in the incidence rate of major intra-abdominal complications in the subgroups divided by age, sex, comorbidity, operative approach, body mass index, extent of lymphadenectomy, and pathological stage. Abdominal drainage had no significant impact on early diagnosis, secondary intervention or reoperation, or recovery from major intra-abdominal complications.

Conclusions

Prophylactic abdominal drainage showed little demonstrable benefit in the prevention and management of major intra-abdominal complications of total gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical drain management after the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: draining-tract-targeted works better than standard management

Purpose

Drains’ role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of “standard” and “draining-tract-targeted” management of abdominal drains still in situ after diagnosing a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

Methods

PubMed and Scopus were searched for “pancreaticoduodenectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy or duodenopancreatectomy,” “Whipple,” “proximal pancreatectomy,” “pylorus-preserving pancreatectomy,” and “postoperative pancreatic fistula or POPF.”. Main outcomes included clinically relevant (CR) POPF, grade-C POPF, overall mortality, POPF-related mortality, and CR-POPF-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of radiological and/or endoscopic interventions, reoperations, and completion pancreatectomies.

Results

Overall, 12,089 studies were retrieved by the search of the English literature (01/01/1990–31/12/2018). Three hundred and twenty-six studies (90,321 patients) reporting ≥ 100 PDs and ≥ 10 PD/year were finally included into the study. Average incidences were obtained by averaging the incidence rates reported in the single articles. Pooled incidences were calculated by combining the number of events and the total number of patients considered in the various studies. These were then meta-analyzed using DerSimonian and Laird’s (1986) method. Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare pooled incidences between groups. Post hoc testing was used to see which groups differed. The meta-analyzed incidences were compared using a fixed effect for moderators. “Draining-tract-targeted” management showed a significant advantage over “standard” management in four clinically relevant outcomes out of eight according to pool analysis and in one of them according to meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Clinically, “draining-targeted” management of POPF should be preferred to “standard” management.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00423-020-02005-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Futility of abdominal drain in elective laparoscopic splenectomy

PURPOSE

Despite the implementation of minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery protocols, the use of drain in elective splenectomy is still controversial. The aim of this study was to assess whether the abdominal drain can impact on short-term outcome after elective laparoscopic splenectomy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a consecutively collected database including all patients who underwent elective laparoscopic splenectomy in our institution between January 2001 and June 2019. Postoperative complications were defined according to a priori criteria and graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. All complications that occurred during hospitalization or within 30 days after discharge were considered. Primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, and secondary endpoint was postoperative hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-one patients were analysed. Intraperitoneal drain was placed in 75 (46.6%) patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 36 (22.4%) patients, while 8 (4.9%) patients had major complications. Median postoperative length of stay was 4 days. At multivariate analysis, only malignancy was significantly associated with the onset of complications (OR 3.50; 95% CI 1.1-11.0; p = 0.032). Malignancy, ASA > 2, conversion to open surgery, presence of drain and longer operation were significantly associated with prolonged length of stay. Patients with drain showed a greater unadjusted risk of abdominal collections (RR 10.32; 95% CI 1.3-79.6; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Abdominal drain did not reduce morbidity and prolonged the length of stay following elective laparoscopic splenectomy. Therefore, the present study does not support the routine use of drain in such procedure.

Global updates in the treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Part 2: perioperative management, multimodal therapies, new technologies, standardization of the surgical treatment and educational aspects

Gastric cancer is the fifth malignancy and the third cause of cancer death worldwide, according to the global cancer statistics presented in 2018. Its definition and staging have been revised in the eight edition of the AJCC/TNM classification, which took effect in 2018. Novel molecular classifications for GC have been recently established and the process of translating these classifications into clinical practice is ongoing. The cornerstone of GC treatment is surgical, in a context of multimodal therapy. Surgical treatment is being standardized, and is evolving according to new anatomical concepts and to the recent technological developments. This is leading to a massive improvement in the use of mini-invasive techniques. Mini-invasive techniques aim to be equivalent to open surgery from an oncologic point of view, with better short-term outcomes. The persecution of better short-term outcomes also includes the optimization of the perioperative management, which is being implemented on large scale according to the enhanced recovery after surgery principles. In the era of precision medicine, multimodal treatment is also evolving. The long-time-awaited results of many trials investigating the role for preoperative and postoperative management have been published, changing the clinical practice. Novel investigations focused both on traditional chemotherapeutic regimens and targeted therapies are currently ongoing. Modern platforms increase the possibility for further standardization of the different treatments, promote the use of big data and open new possibilities for surgical learning. This systematic review in two parts assesses all the current updates in GC treatment.

Timing for removing prophylactic drains after liver resection: an evaluation of drain removal on the third and first postoperative days

Background

Conventionally, drains are removed from postoperative day (POD) 7 to POD 14 at our institute after hepatectomy (control group). This study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of drain removal in the early postoperative period.

Methods

Recently, we defined criteria for the early removal of drains: (I) a drain-fluid bilirubin level of below 3 mg/dL; (II) a drain discharge volume of less than 500 mL/day; and (III) no macroscopic signs of bleeding or infection. For patients meeting these criteria, drains were removed on POD 3 between January 2012 and February 2013 (POD 3 group) and on POD 1 between February and December 2013 (POD 1 group). The outcomes of these groups were then retrospectively compared.

Results

The median duration of the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the POD 3 group (11 days) than in the control group (14 days) (P<0.0001). The incidence of drain infection was lower in the POD 3 group (1.2%) than in the control group (5.7%). Meanwhile, the incidences of bile leakage and complications were higher in the POD 1 group than in the POD 3 group. However, the incidences were almost the same when patients whose drains were actually removed on the predefined POD were compared. The intraoperative findings were also considered when removing the drains.

Conclusions

Drain removal on POD 3 may reduce the length of the postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of drain infection without impairing safety. To remove drains safely on POD 1, however, the intraoperative findings should also be considered.

Enhanced recovery after surgery for gastric cancer (ERAS-GC): optimizing patient outcome

Significant advances were achieved, in last decades, in the management of surgical patients with gastric cancer. This has led to the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with the objective of reducing the length of hospital stay, accelerating postoperative recovery and reducing the surgical stress. The ERAS protocols have many items, including the pre-operative patient education, early mobilization and feeding starting from the first postoperative day. This review aims to highlight possible advantages on postoperative functional recovery outcomes after gastrectomy in patients undergoing an ERAS program, current lack of evidences and future perspectives.

Systematic Review of the Role of Biomarkers in Predicting Anastomotic Leakage Following Gastroesophageal Cancer Surgery

Anastomotic leakage (AL) following gastroesophageal cancer surgery remains a serious postoperative complication. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of investigated biomarkers for the early detection of AL following esophagectomy, esophagogastrectomy and gastrectomy. All published studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers predicting AL following gastroesophageal resection for cancer were included. The Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) 2 tool. Twenty-four studies evaluated biomarkers in the context of AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Biomarkers were derived from the systemic circulation, mediastinal and peritoneal drains, urine and mediastinal microdialysis. The most commonly evaluated serum biomarkers were C-reactive protein and leucocytes. Both proved to be useful markers for excluding AL owing to its high specificity and negative predictive values. Amylase was the most commonly evaluated peritoneal drain biomarker and significantly elevated levels can predict AL in the early postoperative period. The associated area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve values ranged from 0.482 to 0.994. Current biomarkers are poor predictors of AL after gastroesophageal cancer surgery owing to insufficient sensitivity and positive predictive value. Further research is needed to identify better diagnostic tools to predict AL.

Influence of Drain Placement on Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of an abdominal drain following laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Our aim was to investigate drain use in laparoscopic RYGB and its effects on postoperative pain.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients were randomly divided into two groups as no-drain (n = 36) and with-drain (n = 30). Intraoperative (time, blood loss, complications) and postoperative outcomes (morbidities, pain scores, hospital stay) were compared.

RESULTS

Demographics of both groups were comparable. Three patients in the no-drain group required a drain (8.3%). Median visual analog scale scores for days 1-3 for with-drain and no-drain groups were 4.5 (2-9) vs. 3 (0-8) (p = 0.02), 3 (0-7) vs. 2 (0-7) (p = 0.10), and 2 (0-7) vs. 0 (0-4) (p = 0.0004), respectively. There was no difference between the groups in terms of complications and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Drain use increased the postoperative pain following laparoscopic RYGB. Drain placement following laparoscopic RYGB should be selective instead of a routine application.

Current status of the "enhanced recovery after surgery" program in gastric cancer surgery

Since the late 1990s, perioperative care through the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [ESPEN]) program has spread. ERAS protocols aim to reduce surgical complications, improving postoperative outcomes and thereby saving resources by addressing various clinical elements through a multidisciplinary approach or based on evidence. In the field of gastric cancer, the philosophy of ERAS has gradually become accepted and, in 2014, consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy were published. These guidelines consist of "procedure-specific" guidelines and "general (not procedure-specific) enhanced recovery items." In this review, we focused on the procedure-specific guidelines and tried to update the contents of every element of the procedure-specific guidelines. The procedure-specific guidelines consist of the following eight elements: "Preoperative nutrition," "Preoperative oral pharmaconutrition," "Access (of gastrectomy)," "Wound catheters and transversus abdominis plane block," "Nasogastric/Nasojejunal decompression," "Perianastomotic drains," "Early postoperative diet and artificial nutrition," and "Audit." On reviewing papers supporting these elements, it was reconfirmed that the recommendations of the guidelines are pertinent and valid. Four meta-analyses concerning the evaluation of ERAS protocols for gastric cancer were included in this review. Every study showed that the ERAS protocol reduced the cost and duration of hospital stay without increasing surgical complication rates, suggesting that ERAS is effective for gastric cancer surgery. However, it cannot be said that ERAS has achieved full penetration in Japan because most evidence is established in Western countries. Future studies must focus on developing a new ERAS protocols appropriate to Japanese conditions of gastric cancer.

Novel abdominal negative pressure lavage-drainage system for anastomotic leakage after R0 resection for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a severe complication associated with high morbidity and mortality after radical gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC). We hypothesized that a novel abdominal negative pressure lavage-drainage system (ANPLDS) can effectively reduce the failure-to-rescue (FTR) and the risk of reoperation, and it is a feasible management for AL.

AIM

To report our institution’s experience with a novel ANPLDS for AL after RG for GC.

METHODS

The study enrolled 4173 patients who underwent R0 resection for GC at our institution between June 2009 and December 2016. ANPLDS was routinely used for patients with AL after January 2014. Characterization of patients who underwent R0 resection was compared between different study periods. AL rates and postoperative outcome among patients with AL were compared before and after the ANPLDS therapy. We used multivariate analyses to evaluate clinicopathological and perioperative factors for associations with AL and FTR after AL.

RESULTS

AL occurred in 83 (83/4173, 2%) patients, leading to 7 deaths. The mean time of occurrence of AL was 5.6 days. The AL rate was similar before (2009-2013, period 1) and after (2014-2016, period 2) the implementation of the ANPLDS therapy (1.7% vs 2.3%, P = 0.121). Age and malnourishment were independently associated with AL. The FTR rate and abdominal bleeding rate after AL occurred were respectively 8.4% and 9.6% for the entire period; however, compared with period 1, this significantly decreased during period 2 (16.2% vs 2.2%, P = 0.041; 18.9% vs 2.2%, P = 0.020, respectively). Moreover, the reoperation rate was also reduced in period 2, although this result was not statistically significant (13.5% vs 2.2%, P = 0.084). Additionally, only ANPLDS therapy was an independent protective factor for FTR after AL (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates that ANPLDS is a feasible management for AL after RG for GC.

[Evidence-based perioperative medicine]

Perioperative medical interventions are an integral part of modern surgical management. In addition to the main manual aspects of surgical interventions, surgeons must also be familiar with preoperative and postoperative medical interventions. This ranges from the indications for perioperative anticoagulation, handling of drainage, adjusting the perioperative analgesia, prescribing an antibiotic prophylaxis to deciding whether a preoperative bowel preparation is necessary. Therefore, this article exemplifies some areas in perioperative medicine. Based on the best available evidence, it should always be critically assessed whether these perioperative interventions really contribute to the success of the treatment.

Practice and thoughts on accelerated rehabilitation in gastrointestinal surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a term often used to describe perioperative care programs that have been shown to decrease complications and reduce hospital stay after major surgery. Its main measures related to gastrointestinal surgery include preoperative nutritional support, bowel preparation, laparoscopic surgical techniques, peritoneal drainage pipes, stomach tubes, postoperative activities, and dietary recovery. In the process of ERAS, different measures should be targeted according to the characteristics of patients' conditions. Clinicians should be familiar with the surgical indications and surgical methods to ensure the safety and quality of the operation, reduce the trauma to patients, and ultimately achieve the goal of accelerating the recovery of patients.

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 last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.

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 studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies 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 used the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.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. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.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 mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

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.This is an update of the review first published in 2015.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 June 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 June 2017), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 30 June 2017), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 June 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2017) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 30 June 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in people 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). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (521 participants), comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia and Africa. The majority of the participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was at low risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of abdominal drainage and no drainage on intra-peritoneal abscess at 14 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-quality evidence) or for wound infection at 14 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-quality evidence). The increased risk of 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity) in the drainage group was rated as very low-quality evidence (RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There is 'very low-quality' evidence that drainage increases hospital stay compared to the no drainage group by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants).Other outlined outcomes, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life, were not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to no drainage group is also subject to great uncertainty. Thus, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 people recruited to the studies. Larger studies are needed to determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes more reliably.

Surgical Considerations in the Management of Gastric Adenocarcinoma

Since Theodor Billroth and César Roux perfected the methods of postgastrectomy reconstruction in as early as the late nineteenth century, surgical management of gastric cancer has made incremental progress. The longstanding and contentious debate on the optimal extent of lymph node dissection for gastric cancer seems to have settled in favor of D2 dissection. Pylorus-preserving distal (central) gastrectomy has emerged as a less invasive, function-preserving option for T1N0 middle-third gastric cancers. Frozen section analysis of margins seems partially helpful in this direction. Last, the role of palliative gastrectomy in patients with metastatic seems less important than initially thought.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: Single-Center Experience

Background

Surgery remains the mainstay of gastric cancer treatment. It is, however, associated with a relatively high risk of perioperative complications. The use of laparoscopy and the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol allows clinicians to limit surgically induced trauma, thus improving recovery and reducing the number of complications. The aim of the study is to present clinical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy combined with the ERAS protocol.

Material/Methods

Fifty-three (21 female/32 male) patients who underwent elective laparoscopic total gastrectomy due to cancer were prospectively analyzed. Demographic and surgical parameters were assessed, as well as the compliance with ERAS protocol elements, length of hospital stay, number of complications, and readmissions.

Results

Mean operative time was 296.4±98.9 min, and mean blood loss was 293.3±213.8 mL. In 3 (5.7%) cases, conversion was required. Median length of hospital stay was 5 days. Compliance with ERAS protocol was 79.6±14.5%. Thirty (56.6%) patients tolerated an early oral diet well within 24 h postoperatively; in 48 (90.6%) patients, mobilization in the first 24 hours was successful. In 17 (32.1%) patients, postoperative complications occurred, with 7 of them (13.2%) being serious (Clavien-Dindo 3-5). The 30-day readmission rate was 9.4%.

Conclusions

The combination of laparoscopy and the ERAS protocol in patients with gastric cancer is feasible and allows achieving good clinical outcomes.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal drains are frequently used after pancreatic surgery whereas their benefit in other gastrointestinal operations has been questioned. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare abdominal drainage with no drainage after pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science electronic databases were searched systematically to identify RCTs comparing abdominal drainage with no drainage after pancreatic surgery. Two independent reviewers critically appraised the studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to aggregate dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes. Summary effect measures were presented together with their 95 per cent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Some 711 patients from three RCTs were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2·0 per cent in the drain group versus 3·4 per cent after no drainage (OR 0·68, 95 per cent c.i. 0·26 to 1·79; P = 0·43). The morbidity rate was 65·6 per cent in the drain group and 62·0 per cent in the no-drain group (OR 1·17, 0·86 to 1·60; P = 0·31). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas were seen in 11·5 per cent of patients in the drain group and 9·5 per cent in the no-drain group. Reinterventions, intra-abdominal abscesses and duration of hospital stay also showed no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic resection with, or without abdominal drainage results in similar rates of mortality, morbidity and reintervention.

Wound drainage for lower limb arterial surgery

BACKGROUND

Drains are often used in leg wounds after vascular surgery procedures despite uncertainty regarding their benefits. Drains are placed with the aim of reducing the incidence and size of blood or fluid collections. Conversely, drains may predispose patients to infection and may prolong hospitalisation. Surgeons need robust data regarding the effects of drains on complications following lower limb arterial surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether routine placement of wound drains results in fewer complications following lower limb arterial surgery than no drains.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies.There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of any type of drain in lower limb arterial surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined study eligibility, extracted data and performed an assessment of bias. An effort was made to contact authors for missing data. The methods and results of each eligible study were summarised and we planned to pool data in meta-analyses when it was considered appropriate, based upon clinical and statistical homogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three eligible trials involving a total of 222 participants with 333 groin wounds. Suction drainage was compared with no drainage in all studies. Two studies were parallel-group, randomized controlled trials, and one was a split-body, randomized controlled trial. Trial settings were not clearly described. Patients undergoing bypass and endarterectomy procedures were included, but none of the studies provided details on the severity of the underlying arterial disease.We deemed all of the studies to be at a high risk of bias in three or more domains of the 'Risk of bias' assessment and overall the evidence was of very low quality. Two out of three studies had unit of analysis errors (with multiple wounds within patients analysed as independent) and it was not possible to judge the appropriateness of the analysis of the third. Meta-analysis was not appropriate, firstly because of clinical heterogeneity, and secondly because we were not able to adjust for the analysis errors in the individual trials. One trial yielded data on surgical site infections (SSI; the primary outcome of the review): there was no clear difference between drained and non-drained wounds for SSI (risk ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 5.94; 50 participants with bilateral groin wounds; very low quality evidence). It was not possible to evaluate any other outcomes from this trial. The results from the other two studies are unreliable because of analysis errors and reporting omissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data upon which to base practice in this area are limited and prone to biases. Complete uncertainty remains regarding the potential benefits and harms associated with the use of wound drains in lower limb arterial surgery due to the small number of completed studies and weaknesses in their design and conduct. Higher quality evidence is needed to inform clinical decision making. To our knowledge, no trials on this topic are currently active.

Enhanced recovery pathways in pancreatic surgery: State of the art

Pancreatic surgery is being offered to an increasing number of patients every year. Although postoperative outcomes have significantly improved in the last decades, even in high-volume centers patients still experience significant postoperative morbidity and full recovery after surgery takes longer than we think. In recent years, enhanced recovery pathways incorporating a large number of evidence-based perioperative interventions have proved to be beneficial in terms of improved postoperative outcomes, and accelerated patient recovery in the context of gastrointestinal, genitourinary and orthopedic surgery. The role of these pathways for pancreatic surgery is still unclear as high-quality randomized controlled trials are lacking. To date, non-randomized studies have shown that care pathways for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy are safe with no difference in postoperative morbidity, leading to early discharge and no increase in hospital readmissions. Hospital costs are reduced due to better organization of care and resource utilization. However, further research is needed to clarify the effect of enhanced recovery pathways on patient recovery and post-discharge outcomes following pancreatic resection. Future studies should be prospective and follow recent recommendations for the design and reporting of enhanced recovery pathways.

Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

There is little agreement on prophylactic use of drains in anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery despite many randomized clinical trials. Results of these trials are contradictory, quality and statistical power of these individual studies have been questioned. Once anastomotic leakage has occurred it is generally agreed that drains should be used for therapeutic purposes. However, on prophylactic use no such agreement exists.

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and non-drainage regimes after colorectal surgery. The following hypothesis was tested: The use of prophylactic anastomotic drainage after elective colorectal surgery does not prevent development of complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The studies were identified from CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Controlled Clinical Trials Database, Trials Register of the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing drainage with non-drainage regimes after anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery were reviewed. Outcome measures were: 1. mortality; 2. clinical anastomotic dehiscence; 3. radiological anastomotic dehiscence; 4. wound infection; 5. reoperation; 6. extra-abdominal complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and cross-checked by the two reviewers. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The RCTs were stratified based on experimental group, according to clinical homogeneity (external validity).

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 1140 patients enrolled (6 RCTs), 573 were allocated for drainage and 567 for no drainage. The patients assigned to the drainage group compared with the ones assigned to non-drainage group showed: a) Mortality: 3% (18 of 573 patients) compared with 4% (25 of 567 patients); b) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence: 2% (11 of 522 patients) compared with 1% (7 of 519 patients); c) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence: 3% (16 of 522 patients) compared with 4% (19 of 519 patients); d) Wound infection: 5% (29 of 573 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 567 patients); e) Reintervention: 6% (34 of 542 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 539 patients); f) Extra abdominal complications: 7% (34 of 522 patients) compared with 6% (32 of 519 patients).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence showing that routine drainage after colorectal anastomoses prevents anastomotic and other complications.