Drain management after pancreatic resection: state of the art

Textbook outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with postoperative hyperamylasemia-a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Postoperative serum hyperamylasemia (POH) is a part of the new, increasingly highlighted, definition for postpancreatectomy pancreatitis (PPAP). This study aimed to analyze whether the biochemical changes of PPAP are differently associated with postoperative complications after distal pancreatectomy (DP) compared with pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The textbook outcome (TO) was used as a summary measure to capture real-world data.

METHODS

The data were retrospectively extracted from a prospective clinical database. Patients with POH, defined as levels above our institution's upper limit of normal on postoperative day 1, after DP and the corresponding propensity score-matched cohort after PD were evaluated on postoperative complications by using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

We analyzed 723 patients who underwent PD and DP over a period of 9 years. After propensity score matching, 384 patients (192 patients in each group) remained. POH was observed in 78 (41.1%) and 74 (39.4%) after PD and DP correspondingly. There was a significant increase of postoperative complications in the PD group: Clavien-Dindo classification system ≥3 (P < .01 vs P = .71), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P < .001 vs P = .2), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (P < .001 vs P = .11), and length of hospital stay (P < .001 vs P = .69) if POH occurred compared with in the DP group. TO was significantly unlikely in cases with POH after PD compared with DP (P > .001 vs P = .41). Furthermore, POH was found to be an independent predictor for missing TO after PD (odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.60; P < .001), whereas this was not observed in patients after DP (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.21-1.33; P = .18).

CONCLUSION

As a part of the definition for PPAP, POH is a predictive indicator associated with postoperative complications after PD but not after DP.

Early drain removal and late drain removal in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Whether early or late drain removal (EDR/LDR) is better for patients after pancreatic resection remains controversial. We aim to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of early or late drain removal in patients who undergo pancreatic resection. We searched seven databases from January 1, 2000, through September 2021, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing EDR vs. LDR in patients after pancreatic resection. We separately pooled effect estimates across RCTs and observational studies. Finally, we included 4 RCTs with 711 patients and 8 nonRCTs with 7207 patients. Based on the pooled RCT data, compared to LDR, EDR reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) (RR: -2.59, 95% CI: -4.13 to -1.06) and hospital cost (RR: -1022.27, 95% CI: -1990.39 to -54.19). Based on the pooled nonRCT data, EDR may reduce the incidence of all complications (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.63), pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.45), wound infection (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.06 to 5.45)), reoperation (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.96) and hospital readmission (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.69). There was an uncertain effect on mortality (OR from pooled nonRCTs: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.41 to 2.53) and delayed gastric emptying (RR from pooled RCTs: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.41). The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that early drain removal is associated with lower hospital cost, is safe and may reduce the incidence of complications compared to late drain removal in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Drain use in pancreatic surgery: Results from an international survey among experts in the field

BACKGROUND

Drain use in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. This survey sought to evaluate habits, experiences, and opinions of experts in the field on the use of drains to provide interesting insights for pancreatic surgeons worldwide.

METHODS

An online survey designed via Google Forms was sent in December 2020 to experienced surgeons of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-two surgeons (42/63, 67%) completed the survey. During their career, 74% (31/42) performed personally >500 pancreatic resections; of these, 9 (21%) >1,500. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents (29/42) declared to always use drains during pancreatic resections and 17% (7/42) in >50% of the operations. For these participants, the use of drains does not increase but reduces the risk of pancreatic fistula and other complications, and more importantly, helps to detect them earlier and manage them better. By contrast, 2 surgeons (5%) declared to never apply drains, whereas other 4 (10%) use drains only in selective cases, deeming that drains increase the risk of infection and other complications. When applied, drains are managed very heterogeneously as for the type of drains, enzyme testing, and removal schedules. Four participants declared to practice continuous irrigation. Twenty-two surgeons (55%) remove drains routinely within the third postoperative day, other 11 (27.5%) only in selected cases, whereas 7 (17.5%) normally keep drains longer.

CONCLUSION

Despite plenty of publications on this topic, drain management in pancreatic surgery remains very heterogeneous. Safety and the surgeon´s personal experience seem to play a determining role.

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.

Clinical relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: when negative amylase levels tell the truth

Drain Amylase level are routinely determined to diagnose pancreatic fistula after Pancreatocoduodenectomy. Consensus is lacking regarding the cut-off value of amylase to diagnosis clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF). The present study proposes a model based on Amylase Value in the Drain (AVD) measured in the first three postoperative days to predict a POPF. Amylase cut-offs were selected from a previous published systematic review and the accuracy were validated in a multicentre database from 12 centres in 2 countries. The present study defined POPF the 2016 ISGPS criteria (3 times the upper limit of normal serum amylase). A learning machine method was used to correlate AVD with the diagnosis of POPF. Overall, 454 (27%) of 1638 patients developed POPF. Machine learning excluded a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae with an AUC of 0.962 (95% CI 0.940-0.984) in the first five postoperative days. An AVD at a cut-off of 270 U/L in 2 days in the first three postoperative days excluded a POPF with an AUC of 0.869 (CI 0.81-0.90, p < 0.0001). A single AVD in the first three postoperative days may not exclude POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy. The levels should be monitored until day 3 and have two negative values before removing the drain. In the group with a positive level, the drain should be kept in and AVD monitored until postoperative day five.

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.

The association of surgical drains with surgical site infections - A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Surgical drains are widely used despite limited evidence in their favor. This study describes the associations between drains and surgical site infections (SSI).

METHODS

This prospective observational double center study was performed in Switzerland between February 2013 and August 2015.

RESULTS

The odds of SSI in the presence of drains were increased in general (OR 2.41, 95%CI 1.32-4.30, p = 0.004), but less in vascular and not in orthopedic trauma surgery. In addition to the surgical division, the association between drains and SSI depended significantly on the duration of surgery (p = 0.01) and wound class (p = 0.034). Furthermore, the duration of drainage (OR 1.24, 95%CI 1.15-1.35, p < 0.001), the number (OR 1.74, 95%CI 1.09-2.74, p = 0.019) and type of drains (open versus closed: OR 3.68, 95%CI 1.88, 6.89, p < 0.001) as well as their location (overall p = 0.002) were significantly associated with SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

The general use of drains is discouraged. However, drains may be beneficial in specific surgical procedures.

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled PANDRA Trial (ISRCTN04937707)

OBJECTIVE

This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of drains does not increase reintervention rates after pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND

There is considerable uncertainty regarding intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis were randomized to intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage. Primary endpoint was overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention). Secondary endpoints were clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), mortality, morbidity, and hospital stay. The planned sample size was 188 patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 438 patients were randomized. Forty-three patients (9.8%) were excluded because no pancreatic anastomosis was performed, and 395 patients (202 drain, 193 no-drain) were analyzed. Reintervention rates were not inferior in the no-drain group (drain 21.3%, no-drain 16.6%; P = 0.0004). Overall in-hospital mortality (3.0%) was the same in both groups (drain 3.0%, no-drain 3.1%; P = 0.936). Overall surgical morbidity (41.8%) was comparable (P = 0.741). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C: drain 11.9%, no-drain 5.7%; P = 0.030) and fistula-associated complications (drain 26.4%; no drain 13.0%; P = 0.0008) were significantly reduced in the no-drain group. Operation time (P = 0.093), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.174), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.199), biliary leakage (P = 0.382), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.062), burst abdomen (P = 0.480), wound infection (P = 0.758), and hospital stay (P = 0.487) did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Omission of drains was not inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reintervention and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. There is no need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis.

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.

Isolated Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy versus conventional pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the advantage between isolated Roux loop pancreaticojejunostomy (IPJ) and conventional pancreaticojejunostomy (CPJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Comparative studies on this topic published between January 1976 and April 2015 in PubMed, EMbase, EBSCO, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library were searched, and selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, bile leakage, wound infection, morbidity and mortality were compared. Pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using either fixed- or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies were included with two randomized controlled and four nonrandomized trials. A total of 712 patients (359 patients from the IPJ group and 353 patients from the CPJ group) were analyzed. The pooled results revealed that IPJ had longer operation time (WMD = 36.55, 95% CI 6.98 to 66.11, P = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences between both groups in postoperative pancreatic fistula, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, bile leakage, wound infection, morbidity, mortality and postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

PD with IPJ was comparable to CPJ in intraoperative outcomes and postoperative complications. However, further randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

DRAPA trial--closed-suction drains versus closed gravity drains in pancreatic surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The morbidity of pancreatic resection remains high, with pancreatic fistula being the most common cause. The important question is whether any postoperative treatment adjustment may prevent the development of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulae. Recent studies have shown that intraabdominal drains and manipulation using them are of great importance. Although authors of a few retrospective reports have described good results of pancreatic resection without the use of intraabdominal drains, a recent prospective randomized trial showed that routine elimination of drains in pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with poor outcome. An important issue arises as to which type of drain is most suitable for pancreatic resection. Two types of surgical drains exist: open drains and closed drains. Open drains are considered obsolete nowadays because of frequent retrograde infection. Closed drains include two types: passive gravity drains and closed-suction drains. Closed-suction drains are more effective, as they remove fluid from the abdominal cavity under light pressure. However, some surgeons believe that closed-suction drains represent a potential hazard to patients and that negative pressure might increase the risk of pancreatic fistulae. Nobody has yet specifically dealt with the question of which kind of drainage is most appropriate in pancreatic surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

The aim of the DRAins in PAncreatic surgery (DRAPA) trial is to compare the closed-suction drain versus the closed passive gravity drain in pancreatic resection. DRAPA is a dual-centre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint is the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula; the secondary endpoint is postoperative morbidity with follow-up of 3 months.

DISCUSSION

No study to date has compared different types of drains in pancreatic surgery. This study is designed to answer the question whether any particular type of drain might lower the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula or other complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01988519. Registered 13 November 2013.

Characteristics of abdominal cavity drainage fluid in Chinese patients without postoperative complications after surgery for gastrointestinal or retroperitoneal tumors

Background

Abdominal cavity drainage fluid can be used as an early diagnostic tool of postoperative complications, and observing its characteristics can help us to judge and handle postoperative complications. There is no accurate standard reference range on its characteristics after surgeries for gastrointestinal or retroperitoneal tumors. This research attempted to analyze its characteristics in Chinese patients without postoperative complications after surgery for gastrointestinal or retroperitoneal tumors, and to offer an experimental basis for establishing a reliable standard reference range for abdominal cavity drainage fluid used to detect postoperative complications.

Methods

This study enrolled 262 Chinese patients without postoperative complications after surgery for gastrointestinal or retroperitoneal tumors.

Results

All patients had a median age (range) of 55 (19–72) years, and 150 (57.3%) were men. There were 93 (35.5%), 115 (43.9%), and 54 (20.6%) patients who underwent surgery for upper gastrointestinal tumors, lower gastrointestinal tumors, and retroperitoneal tumors, respectively. The total amount, density, and pH of the abdominal cavity drainage fluid were 204 (0–6,195) mL, 1.032 (1.011–1.047) kg/m³, and pH 7.0 (5.0–7.5), respectively. The total numbers of cells and white blood cells were 1.3×10¹¹ (5.5×10⁸–6.2×10¹²)/L and 3.7×10⁹ (1.0×10⁷–5.0×10¹¹)/L, respectively. The levels of sugar and protein were 3 (0–37) mmol/L and 39 (1–272) g/L. The total amount of abdominal cavity drainage fluid, the total number of cells, the total number of white blood cells, the number of multinucleated cells, the number of monocytes, and the levels of sugar were statistically significantly different between the three groups (P<0.05 for all).

Conclusion

This study described the characteristics of abdominal cavity drainage fluid in Chinese patients without postoperative complications after surgery for gastrointestinal or retroperitoneal tumors, and provided an experimental basis for establishing a reliable standard reference range for abdominal cavity drainage fluid for screening for postoperative complications.

Pancreatic fistula and postoperative pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer

The most serious complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is pancreatic fistula (PF) type C, either as a consequence or independently from postoperative pancreatitis (PP). Differentiating between these two types of complications is often very difficult, if not impossible. The most significant factor in early diagnosis of PP after PD is an abrupt change in clinical status. In our retrospective study we also observed significantly higher levels of serum concentrations of CRP and AMS comparing to PF without PP. Based on our findings, CT scan is not beneficial in the early diagnosis of PP. Meantime PF type C is indication to operative revision with mostly drainage procedure which is obviously not much technically demanding, there are no definite guidelines on how to proceed in PP. Therefore the surgeon's experience determines not only whether PP will be diagnosed early enough and will be differentiated from PF without PP, but also whether a completion pancreatectomy will be performed in indicated cases.

Is routine drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

With the development of imaging technology and surgical techniques, pancreatic resections to treat pancreatic tumors, ampulla tumors, and other pancreatic diseases have increased. Pancreaticoduodenectomy, one type of pancreatic resection, is a complex surgery with the loss of pancreatic integrity and various anastomoses. Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy such as pancreatic fistulas and anastomosis leakage are common and significantly associated with patient outcomes. Pancreatic fistula is one of the most important postoperative complications; this condition can cause intraperitoneal hemorrhage, septic shock, or even death. An effective way has not yet been found to avoid the occurrence of pancreatic fistula. In most medical centers, the frequency of pancreatic fistula has remained between 9% and 13%. The early detection and routine drainage of anastomotic fistulas, pancreatic fistulas, bleeding, or other intra-abdominal fluid collections after pancreatic resections are considered as important and effective ways to reduce postoperative complications and the mortality rate. However, many recent studies have argued that routine drainage after abdominal operations, including pancreaticoduodenectomies, does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications. Although inserting drains after pancreatic resections continues to be a routine procedure, its necessity remains controversial. This article reviews studies of the advantages and disadvantages of routine drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy and discusses the necessity of this procedure.

To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperative abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes after routine intra-abdominal drainage with those after no drainage after pancreatic resection. Studies were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Trial Register and EMBASE databases and meta-analysed cumulatively, adjusting for multiple testing and heterogeneity using the iterated logarithm method.

RESULTS

Three reports, describing, respectively, one randomized and two non-randomized studies with a comparative design, met the inclusion criteria predefined for primary studies reporting on drain management and complications after pancreatic resection. These studies included 89, 179 and 226 patients, respectively. The absolute differences in rates of postoperative complications in these studies were -6.4%, -9.5% and -6.3%, respectively, in favour of the no-drain groups. The cumulative risk difference in major complications, adjusted for multiple testing and heterogeneity, was -7.8%, with a 95% confidence interval of -20.2% to 4.7% (P = 0.214).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of abdominal drains after pancreatic resection may result in a higher risk for major complications, but the evidence is inconclusive.

Poor level of agreement on the management of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of an international survey

OBJECTIVES

The occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the main cause of severe complications, including death, after pancreatic surgery. This study was conduced to evaluate current practice in the management of POPF after Whipple surgery and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

An online survey endorsed by the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) was conducted among surgical departments active in pancreatic surgery. A total of 108 centres were contacted by e-mail. The survey focused on the use and timing of drainage, nutrition strategies, provision of somatostatin and antibiotic therapies, imaging strategy and indications for reoperation when POPF is diagnosed after pancreatic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 55 centres (51%) completed the survey. Overall, responses showed poor agreement among centres (Fleiss' kappa: <0.40) on 89% of items after Whipple surgery and 78% of items after DP. There was very poor or no agreement (Fleiss' kappa: <0.1) on postoperative strategies for the management of nutrition and use of somatostatin after both procedures. In the event of POPF, 42% of centres used total oral nutrition and 22% used somatostatin after Whipple surgery, and 71% used total oral nutrition and 31% used somatostatin after DP. There were significant disagreements between units conducting, respectively, more and fewer than 50 Whipple procedures per year on drain removal after DP, and imaging strategy and patient discharge after Whipple surgery and DP.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey discloses important disagreements worldwide regarding the management of POPF after both Whipple surgery and DP. The standardized management of POPF would better facilitate the comparison of outcomes in future trials.

Clinical implications of biological markers in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a malignant neoplasm and is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in US with a 5-year survival rate less than 5%. Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment even though the result is a palliation in the majority of cases and the majority of lesions are lately diagnosed. Progression from normal pancreatic epithelium to metastatic disease is now a well-characterized sequence of events. Research has shown that pancreatic cancer is fundamentally a genetic disease with several biological pathway implied in apoptosis, cell proliferation and self-sufficiency in growth signaling, but how those findings could be applied in daily clinical practice remain unknown. Several studies tried to characterize diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in PDAC to make it possible an earlier diagnosis, guarantee a more effective treatment and reach a better prognosis even though the results remain contrasting. The main limit of the published researches is the small number of patients studied, but even the heterogeneity of the used methods of analysis. Examining critically the research of the last years future trials may be addressed toward a translational models integrating "the bench and the bed" with the clinical experience and drive the basic research toward the clinical applications.