Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

Evidence-based approach for intraabdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Historically intraoperative drains were employed after pancreatic surgery but over the last decade, there has been debate over the routine usage of drains.

AIM

To assess the necessity of intra-abdominal drain placement, identify the most effective drain type, and determine the optimal timing for drain removal.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords until December 2023. From an initial pool of 1910 articles, 48 were included after exclusion and screening. The primary outcomes analyzed were clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), overall morbidity, and mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Routine use of drains is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of CR-POPF and DGE. Conversely, patients who did not have drains placed experienced a significant reduction in morbidity, readmission rates, and reoperations. No significant differences were observed between active and passive drain types. Early drain removal (< 3 days) yielded favorable outcomes compared to delayed removal.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies did not demonstrate an advantage of routine drain placement following pancreatic resection, potentially contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to use drains should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. However, early drain removal can substantially reduce morbidity.

Nationwide analysis of one-year mortality following pancreatectomy in 17,183 patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of 1-year mortality following pancreatectomy for PDAC as a measure of surgical quality has not been evaluated. We aim to i) assess the 1-year mortality rate following pancreatectomy for PDAC, and ii) identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with 1-year mortality.

METHODS

Data was extracted retrospectively from the French national medico-administrative database. The study included patients who underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC between January 2012 and December 2019. The primary outcome was 1-year postoperative mortality. Hospitals were classified based on volume (high (≥26 resections/year) and low volume (<26)).

RESULTS

Overall, 17,183 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC were included. The overall 90-day and 1-year mortalities were 6.5 % and 21.5 %, respectively. 1-year mortality varied significantly between low and high-volume hospitals (23.6 % vs. 18.6 %, respectively, p < 0.001). Older age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), readmission, major complications were predictive factors for 1-year mortality. Pancreatectomy in low volume hospitals increased the risk of 1-year mortality by 1.23-fold (OR = 1.23, 95 % CI [1.15-1.32], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The overall 1-year mortality after pancreatectomy for PDAC was 21.5 %, and was higher in patients of older age, with higher comorbidities, who experienced major complications, and who did not receive adjuvant therapy. Management in high-volume centers decreased mortality rates, regardless of the patient's condition.

Early Drain Removal Versus Routine Drain Removal After Pancreaticoduodenectomy and/or Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Early drain removal (EDR) has been widely accepted, but not been routinely used in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and benefits of EDR versus routine drain removal (RDR) after PD or DP.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on medical search engines from January 1, 2008 to November 1, 2023, for articles that compared EDR versus RDR after PD or DP. The primary outcome was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Further analysis of studies including patients with low-drain fluid amylase (low-DFA) on postoperative day 1 and defining EDR timing as within 3 days was also performed.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven non-RCTs with a total of 9465 patients were included in this analysis. For the primary outcome, the EDR group had a significantly lower rate of CR-POPF (OR 0.23; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, a lower incidence was observed in delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.63, p = 0.02), Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), postoperative hemorrhage (OR 0.55, p = 0.02), reoperation (OR 0.57, p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.70, p = 0.003) and length of stay (MD -2.04, p < 0.001) in EDR. Consistent outcomes were observed in the subgroup analysis of low-DFA patients and definite EDR timing, except for postoperative hemorrhage in EDR.

CONCLUSION

EDR after PD or DP is beneficial and safe, reducing the incidence of CR-POPF and other postoperative complications. Further prospective studies and RCTs are required to validate this finding.

Effect of passive versus active abdominal drainage on wound infection after pancreatectomy: A meta-analysis

Following pancreatic resection, there may be a variety of complications, including wound infection, haemorrhage, and abdominal infection. The placement of drainage channels during operation may decrease the chances of postoperative complications. However, what kind of drainage can decrease the rate of postoperative complications is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the efficacy of both active and passive drainage for post-operation wound complications. From the beginning of the database until November 2023, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Pubmed database have been searched. The two authors collected 2524 related studies from 3 data bases for importation into Endnote software, and 8 finished trials were screened against the exclusion criteria. Passive drainage can decrease the incidence of superficial wound infection in postoperative patients with pancreas operation (Odds Ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60 p = 0.01); No statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of deep infections among the two groups (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.68-3.36 p = 0.31); No statistical significance was found for the rate of haemorrhage after active drainage on the pancreas compared with that of passive drainage (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77 p = 0.47); No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of death after operation for patients who had received a pancreas operation in active or passive drainage (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57-1.42 p = 0.65); On the basis of existing evidence, the use of passive abdominal drainage reduces postoperative surface wound infections in patients. But there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of severe complications, haemorrhage after surgery, or mortality. However, because of the limited sample size of this meta-analysis, it is necessary to have more high-quality research with a large sample size to confirm the findings.

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.

Continuous irrigation after pancreatectomy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the peripancreatic area is frequently used to treat necrotizing pancreatitis, but its use after elective pancreatic surgery is not well-known. With this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the current knowledge and expertise regarding the use of continuous irrigation in the surgical area to prevent or treat POPF after elective pancreatic resections.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, screening the databases of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE. Because of the heterogeneity of the included articles, a statistical inference could not be performed and the literature was reviewed only descriptively. The study was pre-registered online (OSF Registry).

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Three studies provided data regarding the prophylactic use of continuous irrigation after distal and limited pancreatectomies. Here, patients after irrigation showed a lower rate of clinically relevant POPF, related complications, lengths of stay, and mortality. Six other papers reported the use of local lavage to treat clinically relevant POPF and subsequent fluid collections, with successful outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In the current literature, only a few publications are focused on the use of continuous irrigation after pancreatic resection to prevent or manage POPF. The included studies showed promising results, and this technique may be useful in patients at high risk of POPF. Further investigations and randomized trials are needed.

Evaluation of Drain Insertion After Appendicectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of drain insertion versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus was conducted, and all studies comparing drain versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis were included. Abdominal collection, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, faecal fistula, paralytic ileus, length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Seventeen studies reporting a total number of 4,255 patients who underwent appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis with (n=1,580) or without (n=2,657) drain were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding abdominal collection (odds ratio (OR)=1.41, P=0.13). No-drain group was superior to the drain group regarding SSI (OR=1.93, P=0.0001), faecal fistula (OR=4.76, P=0.03), intestinal obstruction (OR=2.40, P=0.04) and paralytic ileus (OR=2.07, P=0.01). There was a difference regarding mortality rate between the two groups (3.4% in the drain group vs 0.5% in the no-drain group, risk difference (RD)=0.01, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.04), P=0.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has shown that drains have no effect on the development of intra-abdominal collections in complicated appendicitis, but it can significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications such as fistula, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, ileus and length of hospital stay.

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.

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.

Effect of pelvic drain displacement on anastomotic leakage-related morbidity after rectal cancer surgery

Purpose

Drain insertion after proctectomy is common in clinical practice, although the effectiveness of drains has been questioned. However, drains are commonly displaced after surgery. We hypothesized that drain displacement is associated with clinical outcomes and aimed to assess differences in clinical outcomes, such as overall morbidity, including anastomotic leakage (AL), reintervention rates, length of hospital stay, and mortality rates, between patients who experienced displaced drains and those who did not.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy at a single institution between January 2015 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients who experienced displaced drains and those who did not. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of reintervention in patients with AL. The secondary endpoints were overall morbidity rates, AL rates, length of hospital stay, and mortality within 30 days.

Results

Among 248 patients who underwent proctectomy, 93 (37.5%) experienced displaced drains. A higher proportion of patients who experienced displaced drains required reintervention due to AL than those who did not experience displaced drains (odds ratio, 3.61; 95% confidential interval, 1.20–10.93; p = 0.016). However, no significant difference was found in the overall morbidity rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay between the groups.

Conclusion

Drain displacement does not worsen outcomes such as overall morbidity rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay after proctectomy but is associated with an increase in the need for reintervention in patients with AL.

Postoperative Outcome of Surgery with Pancreatic Resection for Retroperitoneal Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Results of a Retrospective Bicentric Analysis on 50 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUNDS

Multivisceral resection is the standard treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) during which pancreas resection may be necessary.

METHODS

All consecutive patients operated for RPS with pancreatectomy in 2 expert centers between 1993 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (median age: 57 years, IQR: [46-65]) with a primary (n = 33) or recurrent (n = 17) RPS underwent surgery requiring pancreas resection (distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 43), pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (n = 5), central pancreatectomy (n = 1), and atypical resection (n = 1)). Severe postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) was observed in 14 patients (28%), and 7 of them (14%) required reoperation for anastomotic bowel leakage (n = 5), gastric volvulus (n = 1), or hemorrhage (n = 1). Pancreas-related complications occurred in 25 patients (50%): 10 postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) (grade A (n = 12), grade B (n = 6), grade C (n = 1)), 13 delayed gastric emptying (grade A (n = 8), grade B (n = 4), grade C (n = 1)), 1 hemorrhage (grade C). Postoperative mortality was 4% (n = 2), all following PD, caused by a massive intraoperative air embolism and by a multiple organ failure after anastomotic leakage. Pathological analysis confirmed pancreatic involvement in 17 (34%) specimens. Microscopically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 22 (44%) patients. After a follow-up of 60 months, 36 patients (75%) were still alive, among whom 27 without recurrence (56%).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic resection during RPS surgery is associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. PD should be avoided whenever possible while other procedures seemed achievable without excessive morbidity and with long-term survival.

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.

Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreatic Resection: Does A Superior Drainage System Exist? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major source of morbidity following pancreatic resection. Surgically placed drains under suction or gravity are routinely used to help mitigate the complications associated with POPF. Controversy exists as to whether one of these drain management strategies is superior. The objective was to identify and compare the incidence of POPF, adverse events, and resource utilization associated with passive gravity (PG) versus active suction (AS) drainage following pancreatic resection. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 18, 2020. Outcomes of interest included POPF, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), surgical site infection (SSI), other major morbidity, and resource utilization. Descriptive qualitative and pooled quantitative meta-analyses were performed. One randomized control trial and five cohort studies involving 10 663 patients were included. Meta-analysis found no difference in the odds of developing POPF between AS and PG (p = 0.78). There were no differences in other endpoints including PPH (p = 0.58), SSI (wound p = 0.21, organ space p = 0.05), major morbidity (p = 0.71), or resource utilization (p = 0.72). The risk of POPF or other adverse outcomes is not impacted by drain management following pancreatic resection. Based on current evidence, a suggestion cannot be made to support the use of one drain over another at this time. There is a trend toward increased intra-abdominal wound infections with AS drains (p = 0.05) that merits further investigation.

Working towards an ERAS Protocol for Pancreatic Transplantation: A Narrative Review

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) initially started in the early 2000s as a series of protocols to improve the perioperative care of surgical patients. They aimed to increase patient satisfaction while reducing postoperative complications and postoperative length of stay. Despite these protocols being widely adopted in many fields of surgery, they are yet to be adopted in pancreatic transplantation: a high-risk surgery with often prolonged length of postoperative stay and high rate of complications. We have analysed the literature in pancreatic and transplantation surgery to identify the necessary preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative components of an ERAS pathway in pancreas transplantation.

Prophylactic active irrigation drainage reduces the risk of post-operative pancreatic fistula-related complications in patients undergoing limited pancreatic resection

Objective:

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic active irrigation drainage in preventing post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and POPF-related complications in patients undergoing limited pancreatic resection (LPR).

Materials and Methods:

Patients who underwent LPR for benign or borderline pancreatic lesions between February 2014 and March 2019 were enroled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of intraperitoneal drainage used: closed-suction drainage (CSD) or continuous active irrigation drainage (CAID). Data regarding the outcomes and complications of surgery were collected and analysed.

Results:

A total of 50 patients (33 women; age, 50.1 ± 10.8 years) were included in this study. Twenty-nine patients were treated with CSD, and 21 patients were treated with CAID. Clinically relevant POPF and POPF-related complications occurred in 11 patients in the CSD group and in two patients in the CAID group (P = 0.024). Patients in the CSD group demonstrated a longer tube indwelling time than those in the CAID group (17.1 ± 10.2 days vs. 13.7 ± 7.5 days; P = 0.044). Mean post-operative hospital stay was also longer in the CSD group than in the CAID group (20.6 ± 7.9 days vs. 16.1 ± 6.3 days; P = 0.039).

Conclusions:

Prophylactic CAID appears to be an effective alternative for the management of POPF and POPF-related complications in patients undergoing LPR.

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.

The Landmark Series: Mitigation of the Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula

Pancreatic fistula has been the defining complication and challenge of pancreatic surgery. Better awareness and mitigation of postoperative pancreatic fistulas has led to significant improvements in morbidity and mortality of pancreatic surgery. The definition and management of pancreatic fistulas has sequentially progressed over the last three decades; the literature ranges from retrospective, observational studies to prospective multicenter randomized controlled trials. The landmark literature contributions driving the perioperative management of pancreatic fistulas are detailed in this article.

Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study Using The American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic drainage following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) reduces morbidity and mortality. Little evidence exists to advise on whether passive gravity (PG) or active suction (AS) drainage systems result in superior outcomes. This study examines the relationship between drainage system and morbidity following PD.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective PD with an operatively placed drain in the 2016 ACS-NSQIP database were included. Pre- and intra-operative factors were examined. Multivariable logistic regression and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to assess for an association between drainage system (PG vs. AS) and morbidity. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

RESULTS

In total, 3430 patients were included: 563 (16.4%) with PG and 2867 (83.6%) with AS drainage system. On multivariable regression, 1787 patients were included. Drainage type was not associated with POPF, surgical site infection, delayed gastric emptying, or re-operation. AS drainage was protective against percutaneous drain insertion (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96, p = 0.033). In the CEM cohort (n = 268), superficial SSI was higher in the AS group (0.8% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.036). There was a trend toward higher rates of composite total SSI (PG 15.7%, AS 23.9%, p = 0.092) and organ space SSI (PG 14.2%, AS 20.2%, p = 0.195) in the AS group; this did not demonstrate statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that AS drainage is protective against percutaneous drain insertion, but may be associated with increased risk of SSI. There was no relation between drainage type and POPF. A prospective, randomized controlled trial is warranted to further explore these findings.

Surgical Drains After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Needed or Not?

BACKGROUND Routine placement of prophylactic drains after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been suggested and has become common practice in some centers. However, there is a lack of evidence proving the surgical benefits of routine drain placement in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Here, we assessed the effect of surgical drain placement on recovery, length of hospital stay, and complication rates of live kidney donors. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study included all live donor nephrectomies performed at a single institution from January 2010 to January 2017. Surgeries were performed by 2 surgeons; one routinely placed a closed suction drain after LDN whereas the other did not. Patients operated on by these 2 surgeons were enrolled in either the drain or no drain group. Demographic data, preoperative and postoperative creatinine levels, estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, surgical complications, and length of hospital stay were compared. RESULTS The study included 272 patients. Three were converted to open donor nephrectomy and were excluded (1.1%). Among the 269 patients, 156 (57.9%) had surgical drains and 113 (42.1%) did not. Mean surgical time, estimated blood loss, and duration of hospital stay did not significantly differ between groups. Postoperative complications were encountered in 17 of the patients, but the overall complication rate did not differ between patients with vs. those without surgical drains. CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference between the drain and no drain groups in terms of length of hospital stay, complication rates, or postoperative creatinine levels. Thus, placement of a surgical drain in the setting of an LDN is not justified based on our single-center experience.

Risk prediction platform for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy using artificial intelligence

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements in operative technique and improvements in postoperative managements, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a life-threatening complication following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). There are some reports to predict POPF preoperatively or intraoperatively, but the accuracy of those is questionable. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is being actively used in the medical field, but few studies have reported applying it to outcomes after PD.

AIM

To develop a risk prediction platform for POPF using an AI model.

METHODS

Medical records were reviewed from 1769 patients at Samsung Medical Center who underwent PD from 2007 to 2016. A total of 38 variables were inserted into AI-driven algorithms. The algorithms tested to make the risk prediction platform were random forest (RF) and a neural network (NN) with or without recursive feature elimination (RFE). The median imputation method was used for missing values. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to examine the discriminative power of algorithm for POPF prediction.

RESULTS

The number of POPFs was 221 (12.5%) according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definition 2016. After median imputation, AUCs using 38 variables were 0.68 ± 0.02 with RF and 0.71 ± 0.02 with NN. The maximal AUC using NN with RFE was 0.74. Sixteen risk factors for POPF were identified by AI algorithm: Pancreatic duct diameter, body mass index, preoperative serum albumin, lipase level, amount of intraoperative fluid infusion, age, platelet count, extrapancreatic location of tumor, combined venous resection, co-existing pancreatitis, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, American Society of Anesthesiologists’ score, sex, soft texture of the pancreas, underlying heart disease, and preoperative endoscopic biliary decompression. We developed a web-based POPF prediction platform, and this application is freely available at http://popfrisk.smchbp.org.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to predict POPF with multiple risk factors using AI. This platform is reliable (AUC 0.74), so it could be used to select patients who need especially intense therapy and to preoperatively establish an effective treatment strategy.

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.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centers to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registers and the following biomedical databases: the Cochrane Library (2019, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1946 to 13 March2019), Embase (1980 to 11 March 2019), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 13 March 2019), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 13 March 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people 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 (or a Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies involving 1604 participants in the review. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy We included seven studies involving 860 participants: 428 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 432 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 19.3%; control 20.1%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; 755 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may also lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.3% versus 0.5%; Peto OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; 804 participants; six studies; low-quality evidence), or overall postoperative morbidity (28.5% versus 23.2%; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 646 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (2.0% versus 3.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.71; 376 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 371 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included four studies involving 393 participants: 186 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 207 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (16.7% versus 11.7%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.69; 199 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative mortality (0.5% versus 2.4%; Peto OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.32; 393 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.01 days, 95% CI -3.91 to 3.94; 323 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in overall postoperative morbidity (52.6% versus 50.3%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 323 participants; three studies; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (5.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 323 participants; three studies, very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two studies involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (8.4% versus 6.1%; Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (32.0% versus 27.6%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (13.6% versus 16.0%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-quality evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report postoperative pancreatic fistula, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants may have little or no effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The effects of fibrin sealants on the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula are uncertain in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Passive versus active intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: does a superior drainage system exist? A protocol for systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is the most common cause of major morbidity following pancreatic resection. Intra-abdominal drains are frequently positioned adjacent to the pancreatic anastomosis or transection margin at the time of surgery to aid in detection and management of CR-POPF. Drains can either evacuate fluid by passive gravity (PG) or be attached to a closed suction (CS) system using negative pressure. There is controversy as to whether one of these two systems is superior. The objective of this review is to identify and compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and resource utilisation associated with PG and CS drainage following pancreatic resections.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2019, to identify interventional and observational studies comparing PG and CS drains following pancreatic resection. The primary outcome is POPF as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula in 2017. Secondary outcomes include postoperative AE, resource utilisation (length of stay, return to emergency department, readmission and reintervention), time to drain removal and quality of life. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed independently, by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed statistically appropriate. Subgroup analysis by study design will be performed. Study heterogeneity will be calculated with the χ² test and reported as I² statistics. Statistical analyses will be conducted and displayed using RevMan V.5.3 ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The results of this study will be submitted to relevant conferences for presentation and peer-reviewed journals for publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019123647.

Dislocation of intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: results of a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

The use of intra-abdominal drains after major surgical procedures represents a well-established but controversial practice. No data are available regarding both the occurrence and the potential impact of their postoperative accidental dislocation. The aim of this study is to assess the actual rate of dislocation of intra-abdominal drains postoperatively and to evaluate its clinical impact.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study using major pancreatic surgery as a model. Ninety-one consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) underwent low-dose, non-enhanced computed tomography (LDCT) on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3 in a blinded fashion to assess the position of drains. We compared the outcomes of patients with dislocated and correctly placed drains.

RESULTS

Overall, drains were dislocated in 30 patients (33%), without differences between PD and DP. Most of dislocations were already present on POD 1 (77%). Postoperative complications occurred in 57% of patients, and the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 27%. The dislocated cohort had lesser morbidity (40% vs. 66%; relative risk (RR), 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.86; P = 0.020), and the rate of POPF (3% vs. 39%, respectively; RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.42; P < 0.001). After PD, patients with dislocated drains had a shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 20 days; P = 0.015). No significant differences in terms of need for percutaneous drainage procedures, abdominal collections, or grade C POPFs were found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation of intra-abdominal drains is an early and frequent event after major pancreatic resection. Its occurrence might protect against the negative effects of maintaining drainage, eventually leading to better postoperative outcomes. This data reinforces the knowledge that surgical drains might be detrimental in selected cases.

[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.