BACKGROUND: Most surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains at the time of pancreatic resection but this practice has recently been challenged. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the outcome when pancreatic resection is performed without operatively placed intraperitoneal drains. METHODS: In all, 226 consecutive patients underwent pancreatic resection. In 179 patients drains were routinely placed at the time of surgery and in 47 no drains were placed. Outcomes for these two cohorts were recorded in a prospective database and compared using the χ(2) - /Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Wilcoxon's test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Demographic, surgical and pathological details were similar between the two cohorts. Elimination of routine intraperitoneal drainage did not increase the frequency or severity of serious complications. However, when all grades of complications were considered, the number of patients that experienced any complication (65% vs. 47%, P= 0.020) and the median complication severity grade (1 vs. 0, P= 0.027) were increased in the group that had drains placed at the time of surgery. Eliminating intra-operative drains was associated with decreased delayed gastric emptying (24% vs. 9%, P= 0.020) and a trend towards decreased wound infection (12% vs. 2%, P= 0.054). The readmission rate (9% vs. 17% P= 0.007) and number of patients requiring post-operative percutaneous drains (2% vs. 11%, P= 0.001) was higher in patients who did not have operatively placed drains but there was no difference in the re-operation rate (4% vs. 0%, P= 0.210). CONCLUSION: Abandoning the practice of routine intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection may not increase the incidence or severity of severe post-operative complications.
BACKGROUND: Most surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains at the time of pancreatic resection but this practice has recently been challenged. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the outcome when pancreatic resection is performed without operatively placed intraperitoneal drains. METHODS: In all, 226 consecutive patients underwent pancreatic resection. In 179 patients drains were routinely placed at the time of surgery and in 47 no drains were placed. Outcomes for these two cohorts were recorded in a prospective database and compared using the χ(2) - /Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Wilcoxon's test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Demographic, surgical and pathological details were similar between the two cohorts. Elimination of routine intraperitoneal drainage did not increase the frequency or severity of serious complications. However, when all grades of complications were considered, the number of patients that experienced any complication (65% vs. 47%, P= 0.020) and the median complication severity grade (1 vs. 0, P= 0.027) were increased in the group that had drains placed at the time of surgery. Eliminating intra-operative drains was associated with decreased delayed gastric emptying (24% vs. 9%, P= 0.020) and a trend towards decreased wound infection (12% vs. 2%, P= 0.054). The readmission rate (9% vs. 17% P= 0.007) and number of patients requiring post-operative percutaneous drains (2% vs. 11%, P= 0.001) was higher in patients who did not have operatively placed drains but there was no difference in the re-operation rate (4% vs. 0%, P= 0.210). CONCLUSION: Abandoning the practice of routine intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection may not increase the incidence or severity of severe post-operative complications.
Authors: Daniel J Moskovic; Sally E Hodges; Meng-Fen Wu; F Charles Brunicardi; Susan G Hilsenbeck; William E Fisher Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Giovanni Butturini; Abe Fingerhut; Charles Yeo; Jakob Izbicki; John Neoptolemos; Michael Sarr; William Traverso; Marcus Buchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: C J Yeo; J L Cameron; T A Sohn; K D Lillemoe; H A Pitt; M A Talamini; R H Hruban; S E Ord; P K Sauter; J Coleman; M L Zahurak; L B Grochow; R A Abrams Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; Michael B Farnell; Stefano Crippa; Matthew Barnett; George Maupin; Claudio Bassi; L William Traverso Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: M J Heslin; L E Harrison; A D Brooks; S N Hochwald; D G Coit; M F Brennan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 1998 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kristoffer Lassen; Marielle M E Coolsen; Karem Slim; Francesco Carli; José E de Aguilar-Nascimento; Markus Schäfer; Rowan W Parks; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo; Nicolas Demartines; Marco Braga; Olle Ljungqvist; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
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
Authors: Andreas Volk; Philipp Nitschke; Franziska Johnscher; Nuh Rahbari; Thilo Welsch; Christoph Reißfelder; Jürgen Weitz; Marius Distler; Soeren Torge Mees Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Matthew T McMillan; William E Fisher; George Van Buren; Amy McElhany; Mark Bloomston; Steven J Hughes; Jordan Winter; Stephen W Behrman; Nicholas J Zyromski; Vic Velanovich; Kimberly Brown; Katherine A Morgan; Charles Vollmer Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Stephen W Behrman; Ben L Zarzaur; Abhishek Parmar; Taylor S Riall; Bruce L Hall; Henry A Pitt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jordan M Cloyd; Zachary J Kastenberg; Brendan C Visser; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.452