Diego Coletta1, Celeste Del Basso2, Giuseppe Giuliani3, Francesco Guerra4. 1. Department of General Surgery, Emergency Department - Emergency and Trauma Surgery Division, Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00183, Rome, Italy. diegocoletta1@gmail.com. 2. Department of General Surgery, Emergency Department - Emergency and Trauma Surgery Division, Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00183, Rome, Italy. 3. Division of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto, Italy. 4. Division of General Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of subcutaneous prophylactic drainage in preventing postoperative abdominal wound complications is still controversial. We aimed to elucidate whether any difference in the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) exists between patients with or without subcutaneous suction drain following clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing drained with undrained surgeries featuring gastrointestinal (GI) tract opening. The aim of the analysis was to assess the incidence of wound infection. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies, including 2833 patients, were considered eligible to collect data necessary. Globally, 187 patients (83 drained versus 104 undrained) experienced some SSI during the postoperative period. The use of subcutaneous suction drains did not exhibit any significant differences between drained and undrained patients in developing SSI (odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: According to the available, high-level evidence, the use of subcutaneous drains should not be encouraged on a routine basis, as it does not confer any advantage in preventing postoperative wound infection following clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. However, this does not exclude that there might be a benefit in a specific risk group of patients.
PURPOSE: The role of subcutaneous prophylactic drainage in preventing postoperative abdominal wound complications is still controversial. We aimed to elucidate whether any difference in the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) exists between patients with or without subcutaneous suction drain following clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing drained with undrained surgeries featuring gastrointestinal (GI) tract opening. The aim of the analysis was to assess the incidence of wound infection. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies, including 2833 patients, were considered eligible to collect data necessary. Globally, 187 patients (83 drained versus 104 undrained) experienced some SSI during the postoperative period. The use of subcutaneous suction drains did not exhibit any significant differences between drained and undrained patients in developing SSI (odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: According to the available, high-level evidence, the use of subcutaneous drains should not be encouraged on a routine basis, as it does not confer any advantage in preventing postoperative wound infection following clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. However, this does not exclude that there might be a benefit in a specific risk group of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Abdominal wound; Clean-contaminated surgery; Suction drain; Surgical site infection
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Peter K Baier; Nadine C Glück; Ulrich Baumgartner; Ulrich Adam; Andreas Fischer; Ulrich T Hopt Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2010-02-06 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Käthe Goossen; Solveig Tenckhoff; Pascal Probst; Kathrin Grummich; André L Mihaljevic; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Robert L Smith; Jamie K Bohl; Shannon T McElearney; Charles M Friel; Margaret M Barclay; Robert G Sawyer; Eugene F Foley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pascal Probst; Steffen Zaschke; Patrick Heger; Julian C Harnoss; Felix J Hüttner; André L Mihaljevic; Phillip Knebel; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.445