Literature DB >> 20963439

Risk-benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence.

Markus K Diener1, Keyvan Tadjalli-Mehr, Keyvan-Tadjalli Mehr, Moritz N Wente, Meinhard Kieser, Markus W Büchler, Christoph M Seiler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to analyse the risk-benefit association of (1) prophylactic drains and/or (2) the time of their removal after pancreatic resection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Biosis, and The Cochrane Library) was performed to identify all types of controlled trials comparing the role of drainage or the time of their removal on postoperative complications following pancreatic surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Four studies, two randomised trials and two prospective cohort studies, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Removal of drains at day 5 or later did not show an influence on mortality, morbidity, re-intervention or hospital stay compared to no insertion of drains. Early (day 3-4) compared to late (≥ day 5) drain removal significantly reduced pancreatic fistulas (odds ratio (OR) 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.32; P = 0.0002), intra-abdominal collections (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.67; P = 0.02) and abscesses (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-1.00; P = 0.05). Moreover, hospital stay was significantly reduced after early drain removal (mean difference -2.60 days; 95% CI -4.74 to -0.46; P = 0.02)
CONCLUSION: Further randomised controlled trials are warranted to clarify whether drains are of any use. In case of drain insertion, early removal seems to be superior to late removal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20963439     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-010-0716-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  16 in total

Review 1.  [Abdominal drainages].

Authors:  E Domínguez Fernández; S Post
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 3.  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 4.  To drain or not to drain? The role of drainage in the contaminated and infected abdomen: an international and personal perspective.

Authors:  Moshe Schein
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

Authors:  S H Downs; N Black
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Claudio Bassi; Enrico Molinari; Giuseppe Malleo; Stefano Crippa; Giovanni Butturini; Roberto Salvia; Giorgio Talamini; Paolo Pederzoli
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

8.  Surgical drainage: an historical perspective.

Authors:  J O Robinson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  A prospective, randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy.

Authors:  M J Heslin; L Latkany; D Leung; A D Brooks; S N Hochwald; P W Pisters; M Shike; M F Brennan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  29 in total

1.  [Contribution of the Study Center of the German Surgical Society to evidence based surgery].

Authors:  C Fink; T Keck; I Rossion; J Weitz; M K Diener; M W Büchler; P Knebel
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society: current trials and results.

Authors:  Phillip Knebel; Shafreena Kühn; Alexis B Ulrich; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Mesh reinforcement of pancreatic transection decreases incidence of pancreatic occlusion failure for left pancreatectomy: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Nicholas A Hamilton; Matthew R Porembka; Fabian M Johnston; Feng Gao; Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Does Pancreatic Stump Closure Method Influence Distal Pancreatectomy Outcomes?

Authors:  Eugene P Ceppa; Robert M McCurdy; David C Becerra; E Molly Kilbane; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Keith D Lillemoe; Henry A Pitt; Michael G House
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer--methods of clinical research in surgery.

Authors:  Markus K Diener; Thomas Simon; Markus W Büchler; Christoph M Seiler
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 6.  To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection.

Authors:  Aart A van der Wilt; Mariëlle M E Coolsen; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Hans Groenewoud; Cornelis H C Dejong; Ronald M van Dam
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 3.647

7.  Critical appraisal of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) consensus definition of postoperative hemorrhage after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Thilo Welsch; Hanna Eisele; Stefanie Zschäbitz; Ulf Hinz; Markus W Büchler; Moritz N Wente
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 8.  Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yi-Chao Wang; Peter Szatmary; Jing-Qiang Zhu; Jun-Jie Xiong; Wei Huang; Ilias Gomatos; Quentin M Nunes; Robert Sutton; Xu-Bao Liu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Usefulness of drain amylase, serum C-reactive protein levels and body temperature to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Masahide Hiyoshi; Kazuo Chijiiwa; Yoshiro Fujii; Naoya Imamura; Motoaki Nagano; Jiro Ohuchida
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Selective policy of no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy is a valid option in patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula: a case-control analysis.

Authors:  Chetana Lim; Safi Dokmak; François Cauchy; Beatrice Aussilhou; Jacques Belghiti; Alain Sauvanet
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.