Salamat Khan1, Pranil Rai2, Gorakh Misra3. 1. Professor, Department of Surgery, UCMS , Bhairahwa, Nepal . 2. Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, UCMS , Bhairahwa, Nepal . 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, UCMS , Bhairahwa, Nepal .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic use of intra-peritoneal drain is commonly practiced by surgeons in the hope of early detection of complication and reducing mortality and morbidity. The aim of the study was to determine evidence based value of prophylactic drainage of peritoneal cavity in cases of secondary peritonitis and resection and anastomosis of small and large bowel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy one (171) cases were included in the study from March 2012-May 2013 that underwent laparotomy for peptic ulcer perforation (PUP), simple and complicated acute appendicitis (appendicular perforation with localized/generalized peritonitis), small bowel obstruction (SBO) and sigmoid volvulus, traumatic and non-traumatic perforation of small and large bowel. Appropriate management was done after resuscitation and investigation. After completion of operation peritoneal cavity was either drained or not drained according operator's preference. They were divided into drain and non-drain groups. Surgical outcome and postoperative complications ≤30 days of operation was noted and compared between two groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between drained group and non-drained group in terms of age (32.08±15.99 vs. 35.57 ± 16.42 years), Sex (76M: 42F vs. 40M: 13F), weight 50.9 ± 11.75 vs. 48.4 ± 16.1 kg), height (1.6 ± 0.13 vs. 1.5 ± 0.18 Meter), BMI (20 ± 4.7 vs. 20 ± 7.2), ASA score (p= >0.05). However there was significant difference was observed between drained group and non-drained groups in terms of length of hospital stay (9 ± 4 vs 5 ± 3.4 days), operative duration (115.6 ± 41.0 vs. 80 ± 38.1 minutes), infection rates in dirty wound (40.0% vs 12.5%) and overall postoperative complications (35.85% vs16.11%). CONCLUSION: Based on these results, present study suggests that prophylactic drainage of peritoneal cavity after gastrointestinal surgery is not necessary as it does not offer additional benefits for the patients undergoing gut surgery. Moreover, it increases operative duration, length of hospital stay and surgical site infection (SSI).
INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic use of intra-peritoneal drain is commonly practiced by surgeons in the hope of early detection of complication and reducing mortality and morbidity. The aim of the study was to determine evidence based value of prophylactic drainage of peritoneal cavity in cases of secondary peritonitis and resection and anastomosis of small and large bowel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy one (171) cases were included in the study from March 2012-May 2013 that underwent laparotomy for peptic ulcer perforation (PUP), simple and complicated acute appendicitis (appendicular perforation with localized/generalized peritonitis), small bowel obstruction (SBO) and sigmoid volvulus, traumatic and non-traumatic perforation of small and large bowel. Appropriate management was done after resuscitation and investigation. After completion of operation peritoneal cavity was either drained or not drained according operator's preference. They were divided into drain and non-drain groups. Surgical outcome and postoperative complications ≤30 days of operation was noted and compared between two groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between drained group and non-drained group in terms of age (32.08±15.99 vs. 35.57 ± 16.42 years), Sex (76M: 42F vs. 40M: 13F), weight 50.9 ± 11.75 vs. 48.4 ± 16.1 kg), height (1.6 ± 0.13 vs. 1.5 ± 0.18 Meter), BMI (20 ± 4.7 vs. 20 ± 7.2), ASA score (p= >0.05). However there was significant difference was observed between drained group and non-drained groups in terms of length of hospital stay (9 ± 4 vs 5 ± 3.4 days), operative duration (115.6 ± 41.0 vs. 80 ± 38.1 minutes), infection rates in dirty wound (40.0% vs 12.5%) and overall postoperative complications (35.85% vs16.11%). CONCLUSION: Based on these results, present study suggests that prophylactic drainage of peritoneal cavity after gastrointestinal surgery is not necessary as it does not offer additional benefits for the patients undergoing gut surgery. Moreover, it increases operative duration, length of hospital stay and surgical site infection (SSI).
Entities:
Keywords:
Appendicitis; Laparotomy; PUP; Peritonitis; Resection and anastomosis of bowel