BACKGROUND: Abdominal drainage is routinely performed after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but this policy has recently been challenged. The aim of the present study was to assess whether abdominal drainage could be omitted after PD in patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula (PF). METHODS: From 2009 to 2011, 27 consecutive patients underwent PD without abdominal drainage. Their preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared to those of 27 matched patients undergoing PD with prophylactic drainage. Patients were matched 1:1 in terms of demographic data, preoperative weight loss, preoperative biliary drainage, surgical indication, and main risk factors of PF (pancreatic texture, main duct size, and body mass index). RESULTS: Overall morbidity rates (no drainage, 56 % vs. drainage, 70 %; p < 0.4) and operative mortality (1 patient in each group) were similar in both groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of delayed gastric emptying (15 vs. 11 %; p = 0.68), and chylous ascites (4 vs. 15 %; p = 0.35). Radiological or surgical interventions for surgical complications were required in 2 patients (1 in each group). Pancreatic fistula rate (0 vs. 22 %; p = 0.009) and hospital stay (10 vs. 15 days; p = 0.004) were significantly reduced in the no drainage group as compared to the drainage group. The hospital readmission rate was similar in the two groups (no drainage, 3.7 vs. 0 %; p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that abdominal drainage should not be considered routinely after PD in patients at low risk of PF. A no drain policy may reduce hospital stay after PD.
BACKGROUND: Abdominal drainage is routinely performed after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but this policy has recently been challenged. The aim of the present study was to assess whether abdominal drainage could be omitted after PD in patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula (PF). METHODS: From 2009 to 2011, 27 consecutive patients underwent PD without abdominal drainage. Their preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared to those of 27 matched patients undergoing PD with prophylactic drainage. Patients were matched 1:1 in terms of demographic data, preoperative weight loss, preoperative biliary drainage, surgical indication, and main risk factors of PF (pancreatic texture, main duct size, and body mass index). RESULTS: Overall morbidity rates (no drainage, 56 % vs. drainage, 70 %; p < 0.4) and operative mortality (1 patient in each group) were similar in both groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of delayed gastric emptying (15 vs. 11 %; p = 0.68), and chylous ascites (4 vs. 15 %; p = 0.35). Radiological or surgical interventions for surgical complications were required in 2 patients (1 in each group). Pancreatic fistula rate (0 vs. 22 %; p = 0.009) and hospital stay (10 vs. 15 days; p = 0.004) were significantly reduced in the no drainage group as compared to the drainage group. The hospital readmission rate was similar in the two groups (no drainage, 3.7 vs. 0 %; p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that abdominal drainage should not be considered routinely after PD in patients at low risk of PF. A no drain policy may reduce hospital stay after PD.
Authors: Markus K Diener; Keyvan Tadjalli-Mehr; Keyvan-Tadjalli Mehr; Moritz N Wente; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler; Christoph M Seiler Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 3.445
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: Abhishek Mathur; Henry A Pitt; Megan Marine; Romil Saxena; C Max Schmidt; Thomas J Howard; Attila Nakeeb; Nicholas J Zyromski; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 12.969
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