Literature DB >> 2920630

Pelvic drainage after anterior resection of the rectum.

T G Allen-Mersh1, D B Sprague, C V Mann, M J Turner.   

Abstract

Thirty patients undergoing anterior resection of the rectum were randomized for postoperative drainage with either corrugated (N = 14) or corrugated plus Shirley sump drain (N = 16). Drainage volume per 24 hours was measured, and volume of residual pelvic fluid collection estimated by CT scan on the seventh postoperative day. A mean of 591.9 +/- 415.2 ml of fluid drained during the first seven postoperative days. There was a significant (P less than 0.01) increase in 24 hour drainage volume between the fourth and sixth postoperative days. There was no significant difference in drainage volumes between the two drainage methods. Residual pelvic fluid collection (median volume, 16 ml) was detected in 80 percent of patients at one week after operation. While this was larger (24 ml median) for the corrugated only group compared with the corrugated plus sump drain group (11.5 ml median), the difference was not significant. Fluid loss during the first postoperative week (616.6 +/- 424.2 ml) was significantly (P less than 0.05) less when the anastomosis was situated higher than 12 cm (294 +/- 192 ml) compared with 6 to 12 cm from the anal margin (496 +/- 210 ml), or after coloanal anastomosis (1077 +/- 432 ml). Residual pelvic fluid collection was larger after coloanal anastomosis (median, 33 ml; range, 1.5 to 90 ml) compared with 6 to 12 cm (median, 11 ml; range, 0-124 ml) or higher than 12 cm (median 9 ml; range, 0 to 16 ml) from the anal margin, but the difference was not significant. Drainage after anterior resection is important because large volumes of serosanguineous fluid collect, especially after resection of low tumors. Neither of the drainage methods tested in this study prevented persisting pelvic fluid collection at the seventh postoperative day.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2920630     DOI: 10.1007/BF02554533

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  5 in total

1.  The influence of fecal diversion and anastomotic leakage on survival after resection of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jen-Kou Lin; Te-Cheng Yueh; Shih-Ching Chang; Chun-Chi Lin; Yuan-Tzu Lan; Huann-Sheng Wang; Shung-Haur Yang; Jeng-Kai Jiang; Wei-Shone Chen; Tzu-Chen Lin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Pelvic drainage and other risk factors for leakage after elective anterior resection in rectal cancer patients: a prospective study of 978 patients.

Authors:  Chien Yuh Yeh; Chung Rong Changchien; Jeng-Yi Wang; Jinn-Shiun Chen; Hong Hwa Chen; Jy-Ming Chiang; Reiping Tang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  D R Urbach; E D Kennedy; M M Cohen
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Application of Transurethral Prostate Resection Instrumentation for Treating Low Rectal Anastomotic Leakage: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Zhenming Zhang; Zhentao Hu; Yujie Qin; Jun Qian; Song Tu; Jiaxi Yao
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 3.602

5.  To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hong-Yu Zhang; Chun-Lin Zhao; Jing Xie; Yan-Wei Ye; Jun-Feng Sun; Zhao-Hui Ding; Hua-Nan Xu; Li Ding
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 2.571

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.