BACKGROUND: Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of intraperitoneal drains in pancreas resection, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. METHODS: For this, the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were conducted and Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were screened for relevant studies. RESULTS: 8 retrospective and 3 prospective studies were included in the systematic review. No difference was found between patients with or without intraperitoneal drains in mortality (Risk-ratio/RR 0.74, 95%-Confidence-interval/CI: 0.47-1.18, p = 0.20), in Grade B/C-postoperative pancreatic fistulas/POPF (RR 1.31, 95%-CI: 0.74-2.32, p = 0.35), in intraabdominal abscesses (RR 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.30, p = 0.64), in surgical site infection (RR 1.20, 95%-CI: 0.85-1.70, p = 0.30), in delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.11, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.90, p = 0.71), in postoperative haemorrhages (RR 0.92 95%-CI: 0.63-1.33, p = 0.65), in reoperations (RR 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.87-1.52, p = 0.33), or in radiological reinterventions (RR 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.69-1.31, p = 0.76). The risk for overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.29, p = 0.008), of any POPF (RR 2.15, 95%-CI: 1.52-3.04, p < 0.0001) and of readmissions (RR 1.23, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.45, p = 0.01) was increased for patients with intraperitoneal drain compared to patients without following pancreatic resection. CONCLUSION: Regarding the controversial results of the recent prospective, randomized trials this meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality but an increased risk for postoperative morbidity, POPF and readmissions of patients with intraperitoneal drains after pancreatic resection. Therefore, the indication for intraperitoneal drains should be critically weighed in patients undergoing pancreatic resections.
BACKGROUND: Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of intraperitoneal drains in pancreas resection, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. METHODS: For this, the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were conducted and Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were screened for relevant studies. RESULTS: 8 retrospective and 3 prospective studies were included in the systematic review. No difference was found between patients with or without intraperitoneal drains in mortality (Risk-ratio/RR 0.74, 95%-Confidence-interval/CI: 0.47-1.18, p = 0.20), in Grade B/C-postoperative pancreatic fistulas/POPF (RR 1.31, 95%-CI: 0.74-2.32, p = 0.35), in intraabdominal abscesses (RR 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.30, p = 0.64), in surgical site infection (RR 1.20, 95%-CI: 0.85-1.70, p = 0.30), in delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.11, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.90, p = 0.71), in postoperative haemorrhages (RR 0.92 95%-CI: 0.63-1.33, p = 0.65), in reoperations (RR 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.87-1.52, p = 0.33), or in radiological reinterventions (RR 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.69-1.31, p = 0.76). The risk for overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.29, p = 0.008), of any POPF (RR 2.15, 95%-CI: 1.52-3.04, p < 0.0001) and of readmissions (RR 1.23, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.45, p = 0.01) was increased for patients with intraperitoneal drain compared to patients without following pancreatic resection. CONCLUSION: Regarding the controversial results of the recent prospective, randomized trials this meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality but an increased risk for postoperative morbidity, POPF and readmissions of patients with intraperitoneal drains after pancreatic resection. Therefore, the indication for intraperitoneal drains should be critically weighed in patients undergoing pancreatic resections.