K Okumura1, K Hida1, S Kunisawa2, T Nishigori1, H Hosogi1,3, Y Sakai1, Y Imanaka4. 1. Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. 2. Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kyoto City Hospital, 1-2 Mibuhigashi Takada-cho, Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604-8845, Japan. 4. Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan. imanaka-y@umin.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) require surgical repair due to diffuse peritonitis. However, few studies have examined the clinical effects of postoperative drainage after PPU repair. This study aimed to investigate the drain insertion rates in patients who underwent PPU repair in Japan, and to clarify the impact of drain insertion on the postoperative clinical course. METHODS: A retrospective nationwide cohort study was performed using administrative claims data of patients who had undergone PPU repair between 2010 and 2016. These patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not they had received a postoperative abdominal drain. Using propensity score matching, we compared the incidences of postoperative interventions for abdominal complications between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4869 patients from 324 hospitals were analyzed. At the hospital level, drains were placed in all PPU repair patients in 229 (70.7%) hospitals. At the patient level, 4401 patients (90.4%) had drains inserted. The drain group was associated with a higher emergency admission rate, poorer preoperative shock status, longer anesthetic time, and a higher amount of intra-abdominal irrigation. In the propensity score-matched patients, the drain group had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative interventions than the no-drain group (1.9 vs. 5.6%; risk ratio = 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.73; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Postoperative drainage was performed in the majority of patients who underwent PPU repair in Japan. Drainage following PPU repair may facilitate patient recovery by reducing the need for postoperative interventions.
BACKGROUND: Many perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) require surgical repair due to diffuse peritonitis. However, few studies have examined the clinical effects of postoperative drainage after PPU repair. This study aimed to investigate the drain insertion rates in patients who underwent PPU repair in Japan, and to clarify the impact of drain insertion on the postoperative clinical course. METHODS: A retrospective nationwide cohort study was performed using administrative claims data of patients who had undergone PPU repair between 2010 and 2016. These patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not they had received a postoperative abdominal drain. Using propensity score matching, we compared the incidences of postoperative interventions for abdominal complications between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4869 patients from 324 hospitals were analyzed. At the hospital level, drains were placed in all PPU repair patients in 229 (70.7%) hospitals. At the patient level, 4401 patients (90.4%) had drains inserted. The drain group was associated with a higher emergency admission rate, poorer preoperative shock status, longer anesthetic time, and a higher amount of intra-abdominal irrigation. In the propensity score-matched patients, the drain group had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative interventions than the no-drain group (1.9 vs. 5.6%; risk ratio = 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.73; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Postoperative drainage was performed in the majority of patients who underwent PPU repair in Japan. Drainage following PPU repair may facilitate patient recovery by reducing the need for postoperative interventions.
Authors: Kenneth Thorsen; Jon Arne Søreide; Jan Terje Kvaløy; Tom Glomsaker; Kjetil Søreide Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 5.742