K F Kowalewski1, J D Hendrie2, F Nickel3, J von Hardenberg4, P Nuhn4, P Honeck4, M S Michel4, M C Kriegmair4. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. karl-friedrich.kowalewski@umm.de. 2. College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA. 3. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically analyze the impact of prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement or omission in uro-oncologic surgery. METHODS: This systematic review follows the Cochrane recommendations and was conducted in line with the PRISMA and the AMSTAR-II criteria. A comprehensive database search including Medline, Web-of-Science, and CENTRAL was performed based on the PICO criteria. All review steps were done by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The search identified 3427 studies of which eleven were eligible for qualitative and ten for quantitative analysis reporting on 3664 patients. Six studies addressed radical prostatectomy (RP), four studies partial nephrectomy (PN) and one study radical cystectomy. For RP a reduction in postoperative complications was found without drainage (odds ratio (OR)[95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.62[0.44;0.87], p = 0.006), while there were no differences for re-intervention (OR[CI]: 0.72[0.39;1.33], p = 0.300), lymphocele OR[CI]: 0.60[0.22;1.60], p = 0.310), hematoma (OR[CI]: 0.68[0.18;2.53], p = 0.570) or urinary retention (OR[CI]: 0.57[0.26;1.29], p = 0.180). For partial nephrectomy no differences were found for overall complications (OR[CI]: 0.99[0.65;1.51], p = 0.960) or re-intervention (OR[CI]: 1.16[0.31;4.38], p = 0.820). For RC, there were no differences for all parameters. The overall-quality of evidence was assessed as low. CONCLUSION: The omission of drains can be recommended for standardized RP and PN cases. However, deviations from the standard can still mandate the placement of a drain and remains surgeon preference. For RC, there is little evidence to recommend the omission of drains and future research should focus on this issue. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO): CRD42019122885.
PURPOSE: To systematically analyze the impact of prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement or omission in uro-oncologic surgery. METHODS: This systematic review follows the Cochrane recommendations and was conducted in line with the PRISMA and the AMSTAR-II criteria. A comprehensive database search including Medline, Web-of-Science, and CENTRAL was performed based on the PICO criteria. All review steps were done by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The search identified 3427 studies of which eleven were eligible for qualitative and ten for quantitative analysis reporting on 3664 patients. Six studies addressed radical prostatectomy (RP), four studies partial nephrectomy (PN) and one study radical cystectomy. For RP a reduction in postoperative complications was found without drainage (odds ratio (OR)[95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.62[0.44;0.87], p = 0.006), while there were no differences for re-intervention (OR[CI]: 0.72[0.39;1.33], p = 0.300), lymphocele OR[CI]: 0.60[0.22;1.60], p = 0.310), hematoma (OR[CI]: 0.68[0.18;2.53], p = 0.570) or urinary retention (OR[CI]: 0.57[0.26;1.29], p = 0.180). For partial nephrectomy no differences were found for overall complications (OR[CI]: 0.99[0.65;1.51], p = 0.960) or re-intervention (OR[CI]: 1.16[0.31;4.38], p = 0.820). For RC, there were no differences for all parameters. The overall-quality of evidence was assessed as low. CONCLUSION: The omission of drains can be recommended for standardized RP and PN cases. However, deviations from the standard can still mandate the placement of a drain and remains surgeon preference. For RC, there is little evidence to recommend the omission of drains and future research should focus on this issue. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO): CRD42019122885.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cystectomy; Drainage; Partial nephrectomy; Prostatectomy; Robotic-assisted surgery; Urological surgery
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Marie Angela Sidoti Abate; Manuel Neuberger; Marietta Kirchner; Regina Krisam; Luisa Egen; Caelan Max Haney; Fabian Siegel; Maurice-Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Philipp Nuhn; Niklas Westhoff; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 2.692