BACKGROUND: To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperative abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes after routine intra-abdominal drainage with those after no drainage after pancreatic resection. Studies were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Trial Register and EMBASE databases and meta-analysed cumulatively, adjusting for multiple testing and heterogeneity using the iterated logarithm method. RESULTS: Three reports, describing, respectively, one randomized and two non-randomized studies with a comparative design, met the inclusion criteria predefined for primary studies reporting on drain management and complications after pancreatic resection. These studies included 89, 179 and 226 patients, respectively. The absolute differences in rates of postoperative complications in these studies were -6.4%, -9.5% and -6.3%, respectively, in favour of the no-drain groups. The cumulative risk difference in major complications, adjusted for multiple testing and heterogeneity, was -7.8%, with a 95% confidence interval of -20.2% to 4.7% (P = 0.214). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of abdominal drains after pancreatic resection may result in a higher risk for major complications, but the evidence is inconclusive.
BACKGROUND: To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperative abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes after routine intra-abdominal drainage with those after no drainage after pancreatic resection. Studies were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Trial Register and EMBASE databases and meta-analysed cumulatively, adjusting for multiple testing and heterogeneity using the iterated logarithm method. RESULTS: Three reports, describing, respectively, one randomized and two non-randomized studies with a comparative design, met the inclusion criteria predefined for primary studies reporting on drain management and complications after pancreatic resection. These studies included 89, 179 and 226 patients, respectively. The absolute differences in rates of postoperative complications in these studies were -6.4%, -9.5% and -6.3%, respectively, in favour of the no-drain groups. The cumulative risk difference in major complications, adjusted for multiple testing and heterogeneity, was -7.8%, with a 95% confidence interval of -20.2% to 4.7% (P = 0.214). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of abdominal drains after pancreatic resection may result in a higher risk for major complications, but the evidence is inconclusive.
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: 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: Jean M Butte; Jan Grendar; Oliver Bathe; Francis Sutherland; Sean Grondin; Chad G Ball; Elijah Dixon Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Allison N Martin; Sowmya Narayanan; Florence E Turrentine; Todd W Bauer; Reid B Adams; George J Stukenborg; Victor M Zaydfudim Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.452
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
Authors: Nicole Villafane-Ferriol; George Van Buren; Jose E Mendez-Reyes; Amy L McElhany; Nader N Massarweh; Eric J Silberfein; Cary Hsu; Hop S Tran Cao; Carl Schmidt; Nicholas J Zyromski; Mary E Dillhoff; Alexandra Roch; Evelyn Oliva; Alexander C Smith; Qianzi Zhang; William E Fisher Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.647