Literature DB >> 18548264

Passive versus active drainage following neck dissection: a non-randomised prospective study.

Martin Druce Batstone1, Derek Lowe, Richard J Shaw, James S Brown, E David Vaughan, Simon N Rogers.   

Abstract

Drainage is used following neck dissection to prevent the collection of fluid and aid healing. Active drains are thought to be more effective due to their ability to assist adherence of skin flaps and the minimisation of bacterial migration. There is controversy regarding the type of drain (active or passive) which should be used due to concerns about the potential for compromise of free flap pedicles with active drains. A prospective non-randomised study was undertaken to determine if there were any differences in neck healing following neck dissection between active and passive drains. A consecutive series of patients (the majority of whom had free flap reconstruction) were included over an 8 month period and were examined for delayed healing of the neck wound, flap loss, infection, haematoma and fistula. A total of 60 patients underwent 72 neck dissections during the study period (passive: 13, active: 47). The delayed healing rate in patients with passive drains was 54% compared with 6% for active drains (P < 0.001). This difference remained significant irrespective of surgeon grade, nodal status and whether or not a free flap was performed. There was no patient in whom the drain was thought to contribute to free flap loss. This non-randomised study has shown a significant difference in neck healing depending on the type of drain used following neck dissection. Despite the numerical differences between the groups the patients were relatively well matched for the parameters described. This difference in neck healing, combined with the lack of evidence for a contribution to flap loss, suggests active drains should be used following neck dissection in both free flap and non-free flap cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18548264     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0723-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  10 in total

1.  The effect of suction drainage on microvascular anastomosis.

Authors:  A J Sidebottom; J C Devine; J S Brown
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.789

2.  A study of the effect of suction drainage on microvascular anastomosis.

Authors:  B H Choi; J H Yoo; W J Lee
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Survey of the use of suction drains in head and neck surgery and analysis of their biomechanical properties.

Authors:  Jason Williams; Dan Toews; Mark Prince
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-02

Review 4.  The biology and practice of surgical drains. Part II.

Authors:  S H Dougherty; R L Simmons
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 1.909

Review 5.  The biology and practice of surgical drains. Part 1.

Authors:  S H Dougherty; R L Simmons
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Complications associated with suction drains after microvascular anastomeses.

Authors:  M Riaz; K Khan; A G Leonard
Journal:  Microsurgery       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.425

7.  Vacuum requirement in closed surgical drainage of the head and neck.

Authors:  J F Schnetler
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 1.651

8.  Clinical effects of closed suction drainage on wound healing in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  R M Byers; A J Ballantyne; H Goepfert; O M Guillamondegui; D L Larson; J Medina
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol       Date:  1982-11

9.  A clinical audit on the effect of suction drainage on microvascular anastomosis.

Authors:  G Lauer; B H Choi; K Dibah; R Schmelzeisen
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.078

10.  Neck dissections: predicting postoperative drainage.

Authors:  Andrew C Urquhart; Richard L Berg
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.325

  10 in total
  6 in total

1.  Sternocleidomastoid muscle flap used for repairing the dead space after supraomohyoid neck dissection.

Authors:  Jinzhong Li; Zhengxue Han
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-01-15

2.  A prospective randomized controlled trial of subcutaneous passive drainage for the prevention of superficial surgical site infections in open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Masakatsu Numata; Teni Godai; Junya Shirai; Kazuteru Watanabe; Daisuke Inagaki; Shinichi Hasegawa; Tsutomu Sato; Takashi Oshima; Shoichi Fujii; Chikara Kunisaki; Norio Yukawa; Yasushi Rino; Masataka Taguri; Satoshi Morita; Munetaka Masuda
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  The efficacy of active drainage for preventing postoperative organ/space surgical site infections in patients with Crohn's disease.

Authors:  Ryo Ikeshima; Tsunekazu Mizushima; Hidekazu Takahashi; Naotsugu Haraguchi; Junichi Nishimura; Taishi Hata; Chu Matsuda; Masakazu Ikenaga; Kiyokazu Nakajima; Hirofumi Yamamoto; Kohei Murata; Yuichiro Doki; Masaki Mori
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 4.  Is routine drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Authors:  Qiang Wang; Yong-Jian Jiang; Ji Li; Feng Yang; Yang Di; Lie Yao; Chen Jin; De-Liang Fu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: A systematic review.

Authors:  Filip Čečka; Martin Loveček; Bohumil Jon; Pavel Skalický; Zdeněk Šubrt; Čestmír Neoral; Alexander Ferko
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Prevention of complications in neck dissection.

Authors:  Cyrus J Kerawala; Manolis Heliotos
Journal:  Head Neck Oncol       Date:  2009-10-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.