Literature DB >> 24934167

Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

John E Musser1, Melissa Assel, Giuliano B Guglielmetti, Prachee Pathak, Jonathan L Silberstein, Daniel D Sjoberg, Melanie Bernstein, Vincent P Laudone.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of eliminating routine drain placement in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) on the risk of postoperative complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An experienced single surgeon performed RALP on 651 consecutive patients at our institution from 2008 to 2012. Before August 2011, RALP with or without PLND included a routine peritoneal drain placed during surgery. Thereafter, routine intraoperative placement of drains was omitted, except for intraoperatively noted anastomotic leakage. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare complication rates between study periods and the actual drain placement status after adjusting for standard prespecified covariates.
RESULTS: Most patients (92%) did not have ≥grade 2 complications after surgery and only two patients (0.3%) experienced a grade 4 complication. The absolute adjusted risk of a grade 2-5 complication was 0.9% greater among those treated before August 2011 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3%-5.1%; p=0.7), while absolute adjusted risk of a grade 3-5 complication was 2.8% less (-2.8%; 95% CI-5.3%-0.1%; p=0.061). RESULTS based on drain status were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine peritoneal drain placement following RALP with PLND did not confer a significant advantage in terms of postoperative complications. Further data are necessary to confirm that it is safe to omit drains in most patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24934167      PMCID: PMC4216475          DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  23 in total

1.  Routine pelvic drainage not required after open or robotic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Satish Sharma; Hyung Lae Kim; James L Mohler
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: omitting a pelvic drain.

Authors:  David Canes; Michael S Cohen; Ingolf A Tuerk
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 3.  Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Zhen Wang; Junqiang Chen; Ka Su; Zhiyong Dong
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-08-10

4.  A randomized study comparing retroperitoneal drainage with no drainage after lymphadenectomy in gynecologic malignancies.

Authors:  P Benedetti-Panici; F Maneschi; G Cutillo; G D'Andrea; V S di Palumbo; M Conte; G Scambia; S Mancuso
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  [The role of pelvic lymphadenectomy in the therapy of prostate and bladder cancer].

Authors:  A Heidenreich; C H Ohlmann
Journal:  Aktuelle Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 0.658

6.  How do you tell whether a change in surgical technique leads to a change in outcome?

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Timothy A Masterson; James A Eastham
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research.

Authors:  F Merad; E Yahchouchi; J M Hay; A Fingerhut; Y Laborde; O Langlois-Zantain
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1998-03

Review 8.  Standards for surgical complication reporting in urologic oncology: time for a change.

Authors:  Sherri Machele Donat
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%.

Authors:  Karim Touijer; Farhang Rabbani; Javier Romero Otero; Fernando P Secin; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Total prostatectomy and lymph node dissection may be done safely without pelvic drainage: an extended experience of over 600 cases.

Authors:  Nasheer Sachedina; Rosely De Los Santos; Murugesan Manoharan; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.344

View more
  4 in total

1.  Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery or fast track surgery pathways in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhengtong Lv; Yi Cai; Huichuan Jiang; Changzhao Yang; Congyi Tang; Haozhe Xu; Zhi Li; Benyi Fan; Yuan Li
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

Review 2.  Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post-robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?

Authors:  Tatenda C Nzenza; Simeon Ngweso; Renu Eapen; Nieroshan Rajarubendra; Damien Bolton; Declan Murphy; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2020-06-09

3.  A prospective comparative study of routine versus deferred pelvic drain placement after radical prostatectomy: impact on complications and opioid use.

Authors:  Mitchell M Huang; Hiten D Patel; Zhuo T Su; Christian P Pavlovich; Alan W Partin; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy without routine drainage does not increase postoperative morbidity.

Authors:  Dong Hyeon An; Jae Hyeon Han; Myoung Jin Jang; Joomin Aum; Yu Seon Kim; Dalsan You
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2021-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.