To drain or not to drain elective uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The use of intra-abdominal prophylactic drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it change in relation to surgical expertise? A multicenter case-control retrospective study on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is still controversial. The aim of this expertise-based study is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic AD in terms of postoperative complications and analyze the factors linked to AD placement.

METHODS

This case-control retrospective study included patients with cholelithiasis who underwent LC with AD (AD group) and LC without drainage (no-AD group) in two Italian centers. Allocation to groups was non-randomized and based on surgeons' decisions. Patient's characteristics, operative results, postoperative outcomes, surgeon's expertise related data were compared between the two groups with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Patients in the two groups were comparable for age, sex ratio, and morbidity. Length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) in the no-AD group was shorter than the AD group. Patients in the AD group had a higher rate of wound infection. No difference in postoperative pain measured 7 days after the surgery was found. Our results show an association between the first operator's expertise and age and the decision of placing the AD. The operative time seems to be the principal factor impacting the decision whether to place or not the AD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that it is feasible not to insert routine AD after elective LC for cholelithiasis. The use of AD seems to cause more cases of postoperative wound infections, prolongs the LOS and the operative time. The drain placement choice seems to change in relation to the surgeon's expertise.

Optimal drain management following complicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a propensity-matched comparative study

PURPOSE

This study was performed to investigate the effect of drain placement on complicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (cLC) for acute cholecystitis (AC).

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study reviewed patients with AC who underwent cLC between January 2010 and December 2020. cLC was defined as open conversion, subtotal cholecystectomy, adjacent organ injury during surgery, operation time of ≥90 minutes, or estimated blood loss of ≥100 mL. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare the surgical outcomes between patients with and without drain on cLC.

RESULTS

A total of 216 patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 75 female patients [34.7%]) underwent cLC, and 126 (58.3%) underwent intraoperative abdominal drainage. In the propensity score-matched cohort (61 patients in each group), early drain removal (≤postoperative day 3) was performed in 42 patients (68.9%). The overall rate of surgical site infection (SSI) was 10.7%. Late drain removal demonstrated significantly worse surgical outcomes than no drain placement and early drain removal for overall complications (13.1% vs. 21.4% vs. 47.4%, p = 0.006), postoperative hospital stay (3.8 days vs. 4.4 days vs. 12.7 days, p < 0.001), and SSI (4.9% vs. 11.9% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.006). In the multivariate analysis, late drain removal was the most significant risk factor for organ space SSI.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that drain placement is not routinely recommended, even after cLC for AC. When placing a drain, early drain removal is recommended because late drain removal is associated with a higher risk of organ space SSI.

Effect of routine abdominal drainage on postoperative pain after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis: A randomised controlled trial

This is a prospective randomized controlled trial to investigate the effect of routine abdominal drainage on postoperative pain after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis. This study was a single-center randomized controlled trial performed at the general surgery ward of Taleghani hospital, in Tehran, Iran, from July 2018 to October 2018. Patients were randomly divided into two parallel groups, one receiving routine abdominal drainage and the other receiving no treatment. Postoperative pain was measured by the Universal Pain Assessment Tool (UPAT) 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. A total of 60 patients (30 patients in the study and control groups) were included. GLM repeated measure analysis showed a significant time*treatment effect for routine abdominal drainage in decreasing UPAT scores from baseline to 24 h after surgery (F = 4.59, df = 3.98, P-value = 0.001). Our findings demonstrated that abdominal drainage significantly reduces postoperative pain 0, 2, 4, 6, and 12 h after surgery (P-value<0.05). We also showed that abdominal drainage increases the time to first morphine sulfate administration and decreases the total dose of morphine sulfate administration (P-value<0.001). Moreover, we demonstrated that abdominal drainage decreases the average postoperative pain (P-value<0.001) and does not lead to any considerable side effects. However, 24 h after surgery, no significant pain-relieving effect was evident for abdominal drainage. In conclusion, insertion of abdominal drainage leads to decreased postoperative pain. Future studies need to investigate the optimal time for removal of the abdominal drain.

This trial was prospectively registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with a registration ID of IRCT20130706013875N2.

To drain or not to drain: the association between residual intraperitoneal gas and post-laparoscopic shoulder pain for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Residual intra-peritoneal gas may be associated with post-laparoscopic shoulder pain (PLSP), which is a frequently and disturbance compliant after surgery. Herein, we aimed to examine whether expiring residual gas via a surgical drain reduces the frequency and intensity of PLSP in the first day after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 448 participants were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. The incidence and severity of PLSP after surgery were recorded. Of these, the cumulative incidence of PLSP in the drain group was lower particularly at the 12th postoperative hour (18.3% vs. 27.6%; P = 0.022), 24th postoperative hour (28.8% vs. 38.1%; P = 0.039), and throughout the first postoperative day (P = 0.035). The drain group had less severe PLSP (crude Odds ratio, 0.66; P = .036). After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, the drain group also had a significant lower PLSP incidence (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.61, P < 0.001), and less severe PLSP (adjusted odds ratio = 0.56, P < 0.001). In conclusion, the maneuver about passive force to expel residual gas, surgical drain use, contributes to reduce the incidence and severity of PLSP, suggesting that to minimize residual gas at the end of surgery is useful to attenuate PLSP.

Routine drain or no drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered to be the gold standard in the early management of acute cholecystitis however, recommendations for routine drain insertion in the acute setting are unavailable.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of literature review and metanalysis was conducted. All studies comparing drain versus no drain after LC for acute cholecystitis were included.

RESULTS

Seven studies, with 1274 patients, were included. Postoperative wound infection rates (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.88; I2 = 0%) and postoperative abdominal collection requiring drainage (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.12; I 2 = 0%) were lower in the no-drain group, but this was only significant for wounded infections on subgroup analysis of RCTs. Length of stay hospital (mean difference (MD) -0.49, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.09; I 2 = 69%) and operative time (MD -8.13, 95% CI -13.87 to -2.38; I 2 = 92%) were significantly shorter in the no drain group however this was in the context of significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The available data suggests that acute cholecystitis is not an indication for routine drain placement after LC. However, these results must be interpreted with caution due to the limitations of the included studies. In effect, the main issue of this meta-analysis lies on the limitations of the included studies themselves, because of a considerable heterogeneity among the included works, particularly for the inclusion criteria of patients and reported severity of acute cholecystitis. Further work is required to produce evidence which will definitively alter clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2a (systematic review of cohort studies). Oxford CEBM levels of evidence.

The effect on morbidity of the use of prophylactic abdominal drain following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Objective

To evaluate the clinical role of the routine use of a drain in an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy operation applied to patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis not showing acute inflammation.

Method

Following laparoscopic removal of the gallbladder, patients were separated into two groups of 30 each, either with subhepatic drain placement or without. The presence of subhepatic fluid collection was evaluated with transabdominal ultrasonography (USG) at 24 hours postoperatively and on the 7th day. The other parameters evaluated were postoperative morbidity, shoulder and abdominal pain.

Results

No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in respect of demographic characteristics and operative details. The median pain score was determined to be statistically significantly higher in the group with a drain applied compared to the group without a drain (p=0.007). In the comparison between the groups of fluid collection on USG at 24 hours and shoulder pain persisting until the 7th day, although seen less in the group with no drain applied, no statistically significant difference was determined (p=0.065, p=0.159). In the examinations made on the 7th day, no hematoma or significant fluid collection was determined on USG and no wound infection was observed in any patient of either group.

Conclusion

The routine application of prophylactic subhepatic drain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure did not show any benefit to the patient.

Prophylactic drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In the literature, there is a large evidence against the use of drains in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in elective surgery. However, evidence is lacking in the setting of acute cholecystitis (AC). The present meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains to reduce complications and improve recovery in LC for AC. An electronic search of the MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, SpringerLink, Scopus, and Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to July 2018 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in LC for AC. Odds ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) for qualitative variables and mean difference (MD) with CI for continuous variables were calculated. Three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 382 patients randomized to drain (188) versus no drain (194). Morbidity was similar in both the study groups (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.55-2.76; p = 0.61) as well as wound infection rate (OR 1.98; 95% CI 0.53-7.40; p = 0.31) and abdominal abscess rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.08-4.71; p = 0.31). Abdominal pain 24 h after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (MD 0.80; 95% CI 0.46-1.14; p < 0.000). A significant difference in favor of the no drain group was found in the postoperative hospital stay (MD 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.22; p < 0.000). No significant difference was present with respect to postoperative fluid collection in the subhepatic area and operative time. The present study shows that prophylactic drain placement is useless to reduce complications in LC performed to treat AC. Postoperative recovery is improved if drain is not present.

'True Day Case' Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in a High-Volume Specialist Unit and Review of Factors Contributing to Unexpected Overnight Stay

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard treatment for gallstones. British Association of Day Case Surgery recommends at least 60% of LCs be performed as day cases. The aim of this study was to assess our rate of true day case LCs and review factors preventing same-day discharge.

Methods

We prospectively collected data of all elective LCs performed in a district general hospital over 32 months.

Results

500 patients underwent LC during this period; 438 (88.2%) patients were planned day cases and 59 patients (11.8%) planned overnight stays. Of the planned day cases, 75.8% (n=332) were discharged on the same day and 106 (24.2%) had unexpected overnight stay (UOS). Most patients with BMI >35 and ASA3 planned day case patients were successfully discharged. Drain insertion, longer operations, and late recovery departure were the main reasons for UOS. There were more complications in this group compared to day cases.

Conclusions

This unit has a high ‘true day case' rate of 75.8%. High BMI and ASA3 should not be absolute contraindications to day case surgery. The majority of unexpected overnight stays are unavoidable but may be reduced by patient selection, stringent preoperative assessment, operation scheduling, and reduction in unnecessary drain insertion.

Nondrainage after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis Does Not Increase the Postoperative Morbidity

Background

It is now established that prophylactic drainage is not needed after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for chronic calculous cholecystitis. However, the benefit of drains versus their potential harm for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) following laparoscopic LC has been questioned. Therefore, we conducted a comparative study to assess the need for drainage.

Methods

Between January 2014 and October 2016, 212 patients with ACC undergoing LC undergo either drainage (n= 106) or no drainage (n= 106). The primary end points were the number of patients with postoperative drain-related complications, early and late Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, and hospital stay. Secondary end points included estimated blood loss, postoperative recovery, analgesia requirement, and cosmetic satisfaction result.

Results

There was no bile duct injury and mortality in both groups. The overall complication rate was 12.5% with no significant difference between those with or without drainage (P=0.16). Normal activity resumption was significantly faster and the postoperative hospital stay was slightly shorter in the nondrainage group (P =0.03 and P= 0.04, respectively). The early VAS score in the drainage group was significantly higher (p< 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative hematology test, late VAS score, and patient satisfaction of cosmetic outcome.

Conclusion

Routine drainage for patients with ACC after LC may not be justified with similar drain-related complications compared with nondrainage group.