Is the Routine Use of Drainage After Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Justified? A Randomized Trial

Effectiveness of no drainage after elective day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy, even with intraoperative gallbladder perforation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been carried out as day-case surgery. Current guidelines do not mention the role of drainage after LC. In particular, data stay blank with no prospective study on drainage management when gallbladder perforation (GP) accidentally occurs intraoperatively.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of drainage and no drainage after elective day-case LC. Intraoperative GP was recorded. The primary and secondary outcomes were major and minor complications, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were randomized. No major complications occurred in either group. In secondary outcomes, nausea/vomiting, pain, hospital stay, and cost were similar in the drainage group and no drainage group; postoperative fever, WBC, and CRP levels were significantly lower in the no drainage group. GP occurred in 32 patients. Male patients with higher BMI and CRP and abdominal pain within 1 month were more likely to occur GP. Subgroup analysis of GP, primary outcomes, and most secondary outcomes had no difference. Postoperative WBC and CRP were higher in the drainage group. Postoperative fever occurred in 63 patients. Univariate analysis of fever showed that blood loss, drainage, postoperative WBC, CRP, and hospital stay were significant. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that drainage was an independent risk factor for fever after LC (OR 3.418, 95% CI 1.392-8.390; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

No drainage after elective day-case LC is safe and associated with fewer complications, even in intraoperative GP. The trial proves that drainage is an independent risk factor for postoperative fever. The use of a drain after LC may lead to an unsuccessful day-case procedure by causing fever, elevated CRP, and extended hospital stay (NCT03909360).

The effect of abdominal drainage on post-operative morbidity; a prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of drains used in current clinical practice on operation parameters and post-operative morbidity. The comprehensive data obtained through the prospective design were analysed in detail according to whether abdominal drainage was applied. Abdominal drainage was present in 44.1% of patients who met the inclusion criteria. Drains were placed significantly more frequently during oncologic surgery (p = .007). The mean mobilisation (p = .001), first flatus (p = .001), and first oral intake (p = .029) times were longer in the drain group than those in the non-drain group. In patients who underwent oncological surgeries, no significant differences were observed except for the pre-operative duration of bowel preparation (p = .006) and first flatus time (p = .003). Our results suggest that drain placement in gynecological procedures does not provide an additional advantage.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Post-operative drainage of the abdominal cavity has been controversial for many years. However, whether abdominal drainage provides an additional benefit in lower and upper abdominal surgical procedures remains unclear.What do the results of this study add? Most studies have examined post-operative pain and surgical site infections. We examined the relationship between abdominal drainage and demographic and pre-/post-operative clinical features in detail. We demonstrated that abdominal drainage in gynecological procedures may not provide an additional advantage.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The present study provides valuable information that can guide physicians in deciding whether to use post-operative abdominal drainage. This topic warrants investigation with randomised data in the future.

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.

Should surgical drainage after lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy be routine?-A retrospective comparative study

Background

Whether to use surgical drains after abdominal surgery or not has received much attention since a hundred years ago. Nowadays, lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LTLA) is a widely used technique to treat adrenal tumors worldwide. However, the placement of drains after LTLA remains controversial.

Methods

Data of 150 patients, who underwent LTLA between October 2014 and September 2020 by the same lead surgeon, were collected, including demographic, pathology, preoperative, operative variables and postoperative complications. The patients were divided into two groups, with and without drainage. The postoperative recovery of the two groups was compared.

Results

Among 150 patients (65 men and 85 women, median age 48 years, median BMI 23.53), 89 patients had no drainage and 61 patients had drainage after surgery. Variables of the two groups were analyzed. Placement of drains correlated with long operative time (P<0.01). Patients with drain had longer hospital stays (P<0.001) and a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P=0.022). Other factors, including tumor size (P=0.61), tumor location (P=0.387), ASA score (P=0.687), pathology (P=0.55), VAS pain score (P=0.41), intraoperative blood loss (P=0.11), were not found to be significantly associated with drain placement. There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Moreover, no mortality was observed in either group.

Conclusions

This study revealed that it is feasible and safe not to leave a drain in selective and uncomplicated patients and that surgical drainage should not be routine after LTLA.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors which reduce the length of stay associated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe ambulatory procedure in appropriately selected patients; however, day case rates remain low. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify interventions which are effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) or improving the day case rate for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Comparative English-language studies describing perioperative interventions applicable to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients and their impact on LOS or day case rate were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative data were available for meta-analysis from 80 studies of 10,615 patients. There were an additional 17 studies included for systematic review. The included studies evaluated 14 peri-operative interventions. Implementation of a formal day case care pathway was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD = 24.9 h, 95% CI, 18.7-31.2, p < 0.001) and an improved day case rate (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.1, p = 0.005). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, dexamethasone and prophylactic antibiotics were associated with smaller reductions in LOS.

CONCLUSION

Care pathway implementation demonstrated a significant impact on LOS and day case rates. A limited effect was noted for smaller independent interventions. In order to achieve optimal day case targets, a greater understanding of the effective elements of a care pathway and local barriers to implementation is required.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

Background

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

Results

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

Conclusions

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00595-020-02181-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Surgical Techniques for the Laparoscopic Treatment of Bile Duct Stones in Patients With a History of Upper Abdominal Operations: Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Few authors have studied applying the laparoscopic approach in patients with previous upper abdominal operations, but no comparison has been made between laparoscopic and open approaches in patients with previous upper abdominal operations. This article aims to introduce surgical techniques and details in treatment to surgeons specialized in minimally invasive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2010 to January 2018, 460 eligible patients were divided into 3 groups and analyzed retrospectively. Group A: patients with a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent laparoscopy (n=124); group B: patients without a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent laparoscopy (n=140); and group C: patients with a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent an open operation (n=196). Group A was the experimental group; groups B and C served as the control groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between groups A and B. Significant differences were found between groups A and C in estimated blood loss (258.3±67.2 vs. 424.7±103.7 mL, P<0.001), postoperative hospitalization (5.7±2.3 vs. 10.2±3.1 d, P<0.001), and postoperative complications (16.1% vs. 42.9%, P=0.013). The final rate of stones clearance was 100% in 3 groups. The total rate of stone recurrence was 7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy with certain surgical techniques was feasible, effective, and advantageous for patients with previous upper abdominal operations by experienced surgeons. It is necessary for surgeons to have advanced skills and surgical techniques to achieve a successful laparoscopy.

Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with and without abdominal drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether conventional postoperative drainage is more effective than not providing drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of LC surgery with and without an abdominal drain.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs involving 3246 patients (1666 with drains vs 1580 without) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of incidence of intra-abdominal fluid (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.81-1.49; P = .54) or post-surgical mortality (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.04-4.72; P = .50) between the two groups. Abdominal drains did not reduce the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95-1.42; P = .15) or shoulder tip pain (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.76-1.38; P = .86). The abdominal drain group displayed significantly higher pain scores (MD: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.69-1.46; P < .001) than the non-drainage patients. Abdominal drains prolonged the duration of the surgical procedure (MD: 5.69 min; 95% CI: 2.51-8.87; P = .005) and postoperative hospital stay (MD: 0.47 day; 95% CI: 0.14-0.80; P = .005). Wound infection was found to be associated with the use of abdominal drains (RR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.11-3.47; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of routine drainage after LC in non-complicated benign gallbladder disease. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.

Drain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis: a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is paucity of evidence regarding the role of drain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC), and surgeons have placed the drains based on their experiences, not on evidence-based guidelines. This study aims to assess the value of drain in LC for ACC in a randomised controlled prospective study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with mild and moderate ACC undergoing LC were assessed. Preoperatively, patients with choledocholithiasis, Mirizzi syndrome and biliary stent were excluded. Intraoperatively or postoperatively, patients with complications, partial cholecystectomies and malignancies were excluded. Patients were randomised using computer-generated random numbers into two groups at the end of cholecystectomy before closure. Requirement of radiologically guided (ultrasonography () or CT) percutaneous aspiration/drainage of symptomatic intra-abdominal collection or reoperation; continuation of parenteral antibiotics beyond 24 hours or change in antibiotics empirically or based on peritoneal fluid culture sensitivity; requirement of postoperative USG or CT scan based on postoperative clinical course; wound infection rates; postoperative pain using numeric rating scale at 6 and 24 hours; and the duration of hospital stay in both groups were noted.

RESULTS

Forty-two out of 50 consecutive patients were randomised into two equal groups. Pain score at 6 and 24 hours was less in patients without drain. All other complication rates and duration of stay were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Drains should not be placed routinely after LC in ACC as it increases pain and does not help in detecting or decreasing complications.

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.

The role of routine abdominal drainage after bariatric surgery: a metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of drains has long been debated in bariatric surgery. Drains may provide some theoretical benefits to early detection of anastomotic leaks and potential nonoperative treatment; however, there has never been data to support the practice.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of drain placement after bariatric surgery.

SETTING

This retrospective cohort study includes all hospitals in the United States that participated in the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program.

METHODS

Only patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass were included for the analysis. The main outcomes of interest were anastomotic leak, reoperation, all-cause morbidity, readmission, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of abdominal drainage on the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 142,631 patients were identified in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. After adjustment for major clinical variables, the odds of anastomotic leaks increased by 30% with the placement of a drain (odds ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.57, P = .01) while the odds of reoperation increased by 17% (95% CI: 1.06-1.30, P = .01). The odds of all cause morbidity increased 19% (95% CI: 1.14-1.25, P<.01), and odds of readmission were significantly higher (odds ratio:1.12, 95% CI:1.06-1.19, P<.01). The odds of mortality did not change significantly with the placement of a drain.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a large observational cohort, this study provided no evidence that routine drainage is beneficial to patients, but rather may increase major morbidity. Our findings suggest that the use of routine abdominal drainage should be restricted to very select, high-risk cases.

Abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until August 2016. We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status. We used standard methodological procedures in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 2398 participants were randomised to drain (1197 participants) versus 'no drain' (1201 participants) in 16 trials included in this article. Pain 24 h after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (MD1.31; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.65; p < 0.00001). Abdominal drainage prolonged operative time (MD 5.77 min; 95% CI 4.98 min-6.57 min; p < 0.00001) but not the length of hospital stay (MD 0.21 days; 95% CI -0.00 days to 0.42 days; p = 0.05). No significant difference was present with respect to the intra-abdominal fluid, wound infection, nausea or vomit, mortality after operation. There is no significant advantage of drain placement after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomized clinical trials should be carefully re-considered.

The effect of peritoneal gas drain on postoperative pain in benign gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of peritoneal gas drain on postoperative pain in benign gynecologic laparoscopic surgery and the amount of postoperative analgesic dosage.

METHODS

The trial included 45 females who had undergone operations during the period December 2014 to October 2015. The patients were block randomized based on operating time (<2 and ≥2 hours). The intervention group (n=23) was treated with postoperative intraperitoneal gas drain and the control group (n=22) was not. The mean difference in scores for shoulder, epigastric, suprapubic, and overall pain at 6, 24, 48 hours postoperatively were statistically evaluated using mixed-effect restricted maximum likelihood regression. The differences in the analgesic drug usage between the groups were also analyzed using a Student's t-test. The data were divided and analyzed to two subgroups based on operating time (<2 hours, n=20; and $2 hours, n=25).

RESULTS

The intervention had significantly lower overall pain than the control group, with a mean difference and 95% confidence interval at 6, 24, and 48 hours of 2.59 (1.49-3.69), 2.23 (1.13-3.34), and 1.48 (0.3-2.58), respectively. Correspondingly, analgesic drug dosage was significantly lower in the intervention group (3.52±1.47 mg vs 5.72±2.43 mg, P<0.001). The three largest mean differences in patients with operating times of ≥2 hours were in overall pain, suprapubic pain at 6 hours, and shoulder pain at 24 hours at 3.27 (1.14-5.39), 3.20 (1.11-5.26), and 3.13 (1.00-5.24), respectively. These were greater than the three largest mean differences in the group with operating times of <2 hours, which were 2.81 (1.31-4.29), 2.63 (0.51-4.73), and 2.02 (0.68-3.36). The greatest analgesic drug requirement was in the control group with a longer operative time.

CONCLUSION

The use of intraperitoneal gas drain was shown to reduce overall postoperative pain in benign gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. The effects were higher in patients who had experienced longer operating times.

Cholecystectomy for biliary dyskinesia: how did we get there?

BACKGROUND

The focus of biliary dyskinesia (BD) shifted within the last 30 years, moving from symptoms after cholecystectomy (CCY) to symptoms with morphological normal gallbladder, but low gallbladder ejection fraction.

METHODS

We searched the pubmed database to systematically review studies focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of gallbladder dysfunction.

RESULTS

Impaired gallbladder contraction can be found in about 20% of healthy controls and an even higher number of patients with various other disorders. Surgery for BD increased after introduction of laparoscopic CCY, with BD now accounting for >20% of CCY in adults and up to 60% in pediatric patients. The majority of cases reported were operated in the USA, which differs from surgical series for cholelithiasis. Postoperative outcomes do not differ between groups with abnormal or normal gallbladder function.

CONCLUSION

Functional gallbladder testing should not be seen as an indicator of relevant biliary tract disease or prognostic marker to identify patients who may benefit from operative intervention. Instead biliary dyskinesia should be considered as a part of a spectrum of functional disorders, which are generally managed conservatively. Small proof of concept studies have demonstrated effects of medical therapy on biliary dysfunction and should thus be never tested in appropriately designed trials.

Meta-analysis of drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

An electronic search of Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to June 2013 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The odds ratio for qualitative variables and standardized mean difference for continuous variables were calculated.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1939 patients randomized to a drain (960) versus no drain (979). The morbidity rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.10; P = .003). The wound infection rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 4.51; P = .01). Abdominal pain 24 hours after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (standardized mean difference, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 3.34; P < .0001). No significant difference was present with respect to the presence and quantity of subhepatic fluid collection, shoulder tip pain, parenteral ketorolac consumption, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

This study was unable to prove that drains were useful in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has largely replaced conventional cholecystectomy in the past decade. However, there are still limited data about the value of prophylactic sub-hepatic drainage for elective uncomplicated LC. We carried out a systematic review of the literature in order to perform a meta-analysis about this issue. An unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2013 was performed. Overall, seven high-methodological quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, resulting in 1310 patients totally. The incidence of abdominal collections, wound infection and overall mortality according to the presence or absence of the sub-hepatic drainage were meta-analyzed. Sub-hepatic drainage showed an increase in the abdominal collection rate in patients who underwent elective uncomplicated LC (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.43) if compared to patients without drainage. A non-significant correlation was found in overall mortality and infection rates. The meta-analysis shows that the presence of the sub-hepatic drainage does not reduce the incidence of abdominal collection after uncomplicated LC, whereas it does not influence wound infection and mortality rates, postoperative pain and hospital stay.

Is a drain necessary routinely after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for an acutely inflamed gallbladder? A retrospective analysis of 457 cases

BACKGROUND

During laparoscopic surgery for an acutely inflamed gallbladder, most surgeons routinely insert a drain. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the need for drainage in these cases, and the use of a drain remains controversial.

METHODS

This retrospective study divided 457 cases into two groups according to whether or not a drain was inserted and reviewed the surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In this study, 231 patients had no drains and 226 had drains. Both groups were comparable in terms of pathology, demographics, and operative details. There was no statistical difference in operating time, visual analog scale for pain, or postoperative hospital stay. Morbidity occurred in 49 cases (10.7%) and did not differ significantly between the two groups. No mortality occurred in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of a drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for an acutely inflamed gallbladder had no effect on the postoperative morbidity. Therefore, this retrospective study supports that it is feasible not to insert a drain routinely in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients who have an acutely inflamed gallbladder.

Functional abdominal pain syndrome in morbidly obese patients following laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery

Background:

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGBP) is one of the most common bariatric surgeries, which is being performed using various techniques like gastrojejunostomy by hand swen, linear or circular stapler. Abdominal pain is a common complaint following laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure (LGBP), which has different aetiologies, such as overeating, adhesion, internal herniation, bile reflux and many more. In this study LGBP was performed in an ante-colic ante-gastric pattern in a double loop manner and the prevalence and distribution of pain in morbidly obese patients undergoing LGBP was assessed.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to analyze the distribution and frequency of post LGBP pain in morbidly obese patients.

Patients and Methods:

This study was performed on 190 morbidly obese patients referred to Hazrat Rasoul Hospital in Tehran. After LGBP, pain was measured in the following intervals: 24 hours, one week and one month after the operation. Before the operation onset, 2 mg Keflin and 5000 IU subcutaneous heparin were administered as prophylaxis. LGBP was performed using five ports including: one 11 mm port was placed 15-20 cm far from the xiphoid, one 12-mm port in mid-clavicular line at the level of camera port, one 5-mm port in subcostal area in ante-axillary region in the left, another 5-mm port in the right mid-clavicular area and a 5-mm port in sub-xyphoid. All operations were done by the same team. Staple was used for all anastomoses and hand sewn technique to close the staple insertion site. The mesenteric defect was left open and no effort was made to repair it.

Results:

The results of this study showed that 99.94 % of the patients had complains of pain in the first 24 hours of post operation, about 60% after one week and 29.5 % still had pain after one month. In addition, left upper quadrant (LUQ) was found to be the most prevalent site for the pain in 53.7% of the patients in the first 24 hours, 59.6% after one week and 16.8% after one month (except for obscure pain) with a significance of < 0.05.

Conclusions:

In this study, the authors analyzed the location and disturbance level of pain after LGBP, which could serve as a cornerstone for further researches. The authors suggest that long-term follow-up (for more than a year after operation) should be considered in future studies and also the relationship between the drainage site and pain should be investigated.

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1831 participants were randomised to drain (915 participants) versus 'no drain' (916 participants) in 12 trials included in this review. Only two trials including 199 participants were of low risk of bias. Nine trials included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and one trial did not provide this information. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant difference between the drain group (1/840) (adjusted proportion: 0.1%) and the 'no drain' group (2/841) (0.2%) (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.37) in short-term mortality in the ten trials with 1681 participants reporting on this outcome. There was no significant difference between the drain group (7/567) (adjusted proportion: 1.1%) and the 'no drain' group (3/576) (0.5%) in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events in the seven trials with 1143 participants reporting on this outcome (RR 2.12; 95% CI 0.67 to 7.40) or in the number of serious adverse events in each group reported by eight trials with 1286 participants; drain group (12/646) (adjusted rate: 1.5 events per 100 participants) versus 'no drain' group (6/640) (0.9 events per 100 participants); rate ratio 1.60; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87). There was no significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups (one trial; 93 participants; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.63). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (one trial; 68 participants; drain group (0/33) (adjusted proportion: 0.2%) versus 'no drain' group (11/35) (31.4%); RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.75). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (five trials; 449 participants; MD 0.22 days; 95% CI -0.06 days to 0.51 days). The operating time was significantly longer in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (seven trials; 775 participants; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI 2.69 minutes to 7.30 minutes). There was no significant difference in the return to normal activity and return to work between the groups in one trial involving 100 participants. This trial did not provide any information from which the standard deviation could be imputed and so the confidence intervals could not be calculated for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomised clinical trials are necessary.

Randomized clinical trial of a simple pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre to reduce pain after laparoscopy

Background

Shoulder tip and abdominal pain following laparoscopic procedures are well recognized causes of postoperative morbidity. In this double-blind randomized clinical trial attempts were made to reduce postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery by implementing a simple intraoperative technique.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy or laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair were randomized to receive either the current standard treatment (control group) or an intervention to remove residual carbon dioxide. In the intervention group, the pneumoperitoneum was removed at the end of the operation by placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position and utilizing a pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre consisting of two manual inflations to a maximum pressure of 60 cmH2O. In the control group, residual pneumoperitoneum was evacuated at the end of the procedure by passive decompression via the open operative ports.

Results

Seventy-six randomly assigned patients, 37 in the intervention group and 39 in the control group, were recruited. Overall postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0·001). Median (interquartile range) pain scores were significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group at both 12 h (3·5 versus 5; P &lt; 0·010) and 24 h (3 versus 4·5; P &lt; 0·010).

Conclusion

Active evacuation of residual pneumoperitoneum following laparoscopic procedures, by means of two pulmonary recruitment manoeuvres in the Trendelenburg position, reduces postoperative pain significantly. This simple and safe technique can be implemented routinely after abdominal laparoscopy. Registration number: NCT01720433 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

A Rare Cause of Jaundice Following Cholecystectomy: Compression by the Silicon Drain

Jaundice that develops following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a troublesome experience for the surgeon which requires invasive management after a challenging diagnosis period. Jaundice is. We aimed to present our experience with a rare complication of jaundice in a patient that occurred due to the compression of an isolated drain without choledoc canal injury. A 63-year-old female patient underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to symptomatic gallstone. The patient developed post-operative jaundice which was detected by upper abdominal magnetic resonance (MR) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) to result from compression by the silicon drain on main hepatic canal. The patient was discharged upon removal of the silicon drain with recovery in biochemical and radiological parameters. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to report jaundice developing due to extrahepatic bile duct obstruction caused by isolated drain compression. Although this rare complication can be diagnosed by radiological workup and managed by simple surgical intervention, we believe that it requires consideration among other possible complications during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

To drain or not to drain in Roux-en-Y hepatojejunostomy for children with choledochal cysts in the laparoscopic era: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Routine drain placement after choledochal cyst (CDC) excision and Roux-en-Y hepatojejunostomy (RYHJ) is commonly practiced to predict and prevent bile/pancreatic leaks and hemorrhage. Recently, laparoscopic excision of CDC has decreased postoperative morbidity. The necessity of drainage has been questioned. We undertook a prospective randomized trial to assess the need for drainage.

METHOD

Between 2009 and 2011, 121 CDC children were randomized into 2 groups before the laparoscopic RYHJ: drainage group (n = 61) and nondrainage group (n = 60). Patients without severe cyst inflammation, perforated bile peritonitis, common/left/right hepatic duct strictures requiring ductoplasty, or distal cyst deeply embedded in pancreas were included. Normal activity resumption, postoperative hospital stay, complications, and pain scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were recruited according to the selection criteria (drainage/nondrainage, 50/50). Normal activity resumption was significantly faster and the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the nondrainage group. The pain score in the drainage group was significantly higher. On postoperative days 2 and 3, 14% and 38% of the nondrainage group patients were pain free, whereas all the drainage group patients still suffered from pain (P < .01 and P < .001, respectively). The median follow-up period was 12.5 months in the drainage group and 12 months in the nondrainage group. None of the patients developed bile/pancreatic/intestinal leaks.

CONCLUSION

With the laparoscopic approach, no drainage is needed after RYHJ for the majority of CDC children in expert hands. It minimizes postoperative pain and complications, and facilitates recovery.

Drain after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized multicentre controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still debatable. The present study was designed to assess the role of drains in laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed for nonacutely inflamed gallbladder.

METHODS

After laparoscopic gallbladder removal, 53 patients were randomized to have a suction drain positioned in the subhepatic space and 53 patients to have a sham drain. The primary outcome measure was the presence of subhepatic fluid collection at abdominal ultrasonography, performed 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were postoperative abdominal and shoulder tip pain, use of analgesics, nausea, vomiting, and morbidity.

RESULTS

Subhepatic fluid collection was not found in 45 patients (84.9 %) in group A and in 46 patients (86.8 %) in group B (difference 1.9 (95 % confidence interval -11.37 to 15.17; P = 0.998). No significant difference in visual analogue scale scores with respect to abdominal and shoulder pain, use of parenteral ketorolac, nausea, and vomiting were found in either group. Two (1.9 %) significant hemorrhagic events occurred postoperatively. Wound infection was observed in three patients (5.7 %) in group A and two patients (3.8 %) in group B (difference 1.9 (95 % CI -6.19 to 9.99; P = 0.997).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study was unable to prove that the drain was useful in elective, uncomplicated LC.

Do we really need routine drainage after laparoscopic adrenalectomy and splenectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Not only did the introduction of laparoscopy not dispel the controversy over routine drainage after uncomplicated surgery, but paradoxically it contributed to enlivening the debate on the issue.

AIM

To determine the usefulness of operative site drainage after "clean", uncomplicated laparoscopic surgery such as splenectomy or adrenalectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-six participants (female : male 114 : 62) operated on in our centre between Jan 2008 and Nov 2010 were included in the prospective study. Adrenalectomy was performed in 122 patients and splenectomy in 54. In some patients no drains were left after the procedure, while the others had drainage employed. The incidence and character of post-operational complications, the necessity of repeat surgery and the length of the hospital stay were analysed.

RESULTS

In 112 patients (63.6%) the drain was inserted in the operational field, while in the remaining 64 (36.4%) it was not. Out of the whole series of 112 patients with drainage used, complications were observed in 6 cases (5.36%) while in the group of patients without drainage they appeared in 2 (3.12%) of those operated on (p < 0.05). Infectious complications were observed more often in the series with drainage (3.57% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). The hospital stay in patients with drainage was statistically significantly longer than in patients without.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study, no justification for routine drainage after scheduled, uncomplicated laparoscopic adrenalectomy and splenectomy was found. The decision whether to leave a drain should be made for every patient individually.