Literature DB >> 31467391

Regular vs. selective use of closed suction drains following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a regional quality improvement collaborative.

Samer W Kirmiz1, Stephen Babitz2, Susan Linsell3, Ji Qi3, Christopher M Brede2, David C Miller3, James E Montie3, Brian R Lane4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Closed suction drain (CSD) placement is common in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Our goal is to quantify outcomes of RARP for patients undergoing RARP by surgeons who regularly or selectively use CSDs.
METHODS: Patients undergoing RARP (4/2014-7/2017) were prospectively entered into the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS) >2 days, >16-day catheterization, 30-day readmission, and clinically significant urine leak or ileus. Retrospective analysis of each adverse event was performed comparing groups using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: In all, 6746 RARPs were performed by 115 MUSIC surgeons. CSDs were used in 4451 RARP (66.0%), with wide variation in surgeon CSD use (median: 94.7%, range: 0-100%, IQR: 45-100%). The cohorts of patients treated by surgeons with regular vs. selective CSD usage were similar. CSD use pattern was not associated with rates of prolonged catheterization (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.17) or readmission (4.5% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.35) and multivariable analysis confirmed these findings (each p > 0.10). Regular CSD use was associated with LOS >2 days (8.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.12-1.79; p = 0.017) and increased likelihood of clinically significant ileus (OR: 1.64; CI: 1.14-2.35; p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there are specific situations in which CSDs are beneficial, e.g. anastomotic leak or observed lymphatic drainage, regular CSD use during RARP was associated with a greater likelihood of LOS >2 days and clinically significant ileus. Our data suggest that CSD should be placed selectively rather than routinely after RARP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31467391     DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0170-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique.

Authors:  P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 7.450

  2 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.