BACKGROUND: The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection was published from our institution approximately 10 years ago. The current study sought to evaluate the evolution of practice over the last 5 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 2006 and June 2011, there were 1122 resections performed. Six surgeons were evenly grouped and compared by practice pattern: routine drainers (drains placed > 95%), selective drainers, and routine nondrainers (drains placed ∼15%). Prospectively recorded preoperative, operative, and morbidity data were assessed in uni- and multivariate models. RESULTS: Our operative drainage rate was 49% and decreased over time (62% 2006-2008 vs 37% 2009-2011, P < 0.001). Patients without operative drains had significantly lower grade ≥3 overall morbidity (26% vs 33%; P = 0.01), shorter hospital stays (7 vs 8 days; P < 0.01), fewer readmissions (20% vs 27%; P = 0.01), and lower rates of grade ≥3 pancreatic fistula (16% vs 20%; P = 0.05). Similar reoperation (both <1%), interventional radiology procedures (15% vs 19%; P = 0.1), and mortality rates (2% vs 1%; P = 0.3) were seen in both groups. There were no differences between the routine drainers group (n = 248) and the nondrainers group (n = 478) in grade ≥3 fistula or need for interventional radiology-guided procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, operative drains were used nearly half of the time and were associated with longer hospital stay, and higher grade ≥3 morbidity, fistula, and readmission rates. They did not decrease the need for reintervention or alter mortality rates. Routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection could be safely abandoned.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection was published from our institution approximately 10 years ago. The current study sought to evaluate the evolution of practice over the last 5 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 2006 and June 2011, there were 1122 resections performed. Six surgeons were evenly grouped and compared by practice pattern: routine drainers (drains placed > 95%), selective drainers, and routine nondrainers (drains placed ∼15%). Prospectively recorded preoperative, operative, and morbidity data were assessed in uni- and multivariate models. RESULTS: Our operative drainage rate was 49% and decreased over time (62% 2006-2008 vs 37% 2009-2011, P < 0.001). Patients without operative drains had significantly lower grade ≥3 overall morbidity (26% vs 33%; P = 0.01), shorter hospital stays (7 vs 8 days; P < 0.01), fewer readmissions (20% vs 27%; P = 0.01), and lower rates of grade ≥3 pancreatic fistula (16% vs 20%; P = 0.05). Similar reoperation (both <1%), interventional radiology procedures (15% vs 19%; P = 0.1), and mortality rates (2% vs 1%; P = 0.3) were seen in both groups. There were no differences between the routine drainers group (n = 248) and the nondrainers group (n = 478) in grade ≥3 fistula or need for interventional radiology-guided procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, operative drains were used nearly half of the time and were associated with longer hospital stay, and higher grade ≥3 morbidity, fistula, and readmission rates. They did not decrease the need for reintervention or alter mortality rates. Routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection could be safely abandoned.
Authors: Jason Park; Venu G Pillarisetty; Murray F Brennan; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P Dematteo; Daniel G Coit; Maria Janakos; Peter J Allen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 6.113
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
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Jordan M Winter; Markus Schafer; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Yael Vin; Camelia S Sima; George I Getrajdman; Karen T Brown; Anne Covey; Murray F Brennan; Peter J Allen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Christina Haane; Wolf Arif Mardin; Britta Schmitz; Sameer Dhayat; Richard Hummel; Norbert Senninger; Christina Schleicher; Soeren Torge Mees Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Florence Grant; Murray F Brennan; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; Michael D'Angelica; Mary E Fischer; Mithat Gonen; Hao Zhang; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Philip R de Reuver; Justin Gundara; Thomas J Hugh; Jaswinder S Samra; Anubhav Mittal Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-06-16 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