Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery: An international, prospective cohort study

Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in inflammatory bowel disease in pediatric and young adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and indeterminate colitis, often necessitates surgical intervention in cases of severe or refractory disease. Although biologic therapies have significantly reduced the need for surgery, operative management remains essential for certain patients. The choice between laparoscopic (laparoscopy group [LG]) and open conventional surgery (open group [OG]) continues to be a subject of debate. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of LG and OG in pediatric patients with IBD.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies comparing LG and OG outcomes in pediatric patients with IBD. Key outcomes analyzed included major and minor postoperative complications, reoperations, readmissions, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, analyzing 3417 patients, with 1399 (41%) undergoing OG and 2018 (59%) undergoing LG. Our analysis revealed no significant differences in major postoperative complications, reoperation, and readmissions between LG and OG (P = .114, P = .082, and P = .641, respectively). However, LG was associated with shorter hospital stays (6.04 vs 8.35 days; P < .05). Conversions from LG to open surgery amounted to a total of 153 (7.57%). Open surgery had a significantly shorter operative time (173.8 vs 195.5 min; P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Both laparoscopic and open conventional surgeries are safe, effective, and reliable in managing pediatric IBD. Although open surgery offers shorter operative times, laparoscopy reduces hospital stay and minor postoperative complications. The choice of approach depends on the surgeon's experience and patient-specific factors.

Prophylactic drain placement after emergency general surgery procedures? A scoping review of the literature challenging common practice

BACKGROUND

This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on the use of prophylactic drainage (PD) after Emergency General Surgery procedures (EGS) and to change the current practice according to evidence.

METHODOLOGY

Data from an exhaustive literature search conducted across Embase (Ovid), Medline(R) ALL (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was summarized. Literature published between January 2013 and December 2024 was included.

RESULTS

Most studies found better outcomes for the no-drain group. Implementing a drain after EGS procedures potentially increases hospital stays, postoperative pain, and surgical site infection rates. For conditions such as peritonitis and perforated ulcers, only a few studies were available, with some showing benefits of PD.

CONCLUSION

For some conditions, like colorectal emergencies, there is a scarcity of evidence. The outcomes suggest that PD is not recommended in most EGS cases. In high-risk cases, there are some reports on improved outcomes for PD use. Further research is imperative to create science-based clinical guidelines, especially for less-researched conditions.

Impact of intra-abdominal drains in emergency gastrointestinal surgery: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Intra-abdominal drains are often placed in emergency gastrointestinal surgery procedures with the aim to prevent the formation of intra-abdominal collections (IAC) and aid in their early detection. However, the evidence for this is debated. This scoping review aims to evaluate the current evidence for their use in this setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary studies published between January 2000 and September 2023 that assessed intra-abdominal drain placement and post-operative IAC formation in emergency gastrointestinal surgery were included.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles were identified. There was no strong evidence to suggest that prophylactic intra-abdominal drain placement influences the formation of IAC in emergency gastrointestinal procedures. There was a suggestion that drain placement may increase the rate of surgical site infection and length of hospital stay. However, current studies on the topic are of poor quality and high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The undifferentiated use of drains in emergency gastrointestinal surgery should not be encouraged. Drain placement should be specific to the clinical context. Higher quality research is warranted to better understand the influence drain placement has on post-operative outcomes.