Madeline Lemke1, Lily Park2, Fady K Balaa2,3, Guillaume Martel2,3, Jad Abou Khalil2,3, Kimberly A Bertens4,5. 1. School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 2. School of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Liver and Pancreas Surgical Unit, Division of General Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. 4. School of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. kbertens@toh.ca. 5. Liver and Pancreas Surgical Unit, Division of General Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. kbertens@toh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic drainage following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) reduces morbidity and mortality. Little evidence exists to advise on whether passive gravity (PG) or active suction (AS) drainage systems result in superior outcomes. This study examines the relationship between drainage system and morbidity following PD. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective PD with an operatively placed drain in the 2016 ACS-NSQIP database were included. Pre- and intra-operative factors were examined. Multivariable logistic regression and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to assess for an association between drainage system (PG vs. AS) and morbidity. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). RESULTS: In total, 3430 patients were included: 563 (16.4%) with PG and 2867 (83.6%) with AS drainage system. On multivariable regression, 1787 patients were included. Drainage type was not associated with POPF, surgical site infection, delayed gastric emptying, or re-operation. AS drainage was protective against percutaneous drain insertion (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96, p = 0.033). In the CEM cohort (n = 268), superficial SSI was higher in the AS group (0.8% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.036). There was a trend toward higher rates of composite total SSI (PG 15.7%, AS 23.9%, p = 0.092) and organ space SSI (PG 14.2%, AS 20.2%, p = 0.195) in the AS group; this did not demonstrate statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that AS drainage is protective against percutaneous drain insertion, but may be associated with increased risk of SSI. There was no relation between drainage type and POPF. A prospective, randomized controlled trial is warranted to further explore these findings.
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic drainage following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) reduces morbidity and mortality. Little evidence exists to advise on whether passive gravity (PG) or active suction (AS) drainage systems result in superior outcomes. This study examines the relationship between drainage system and morbidity following PD. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective PD with an operatively placed drain in the 2016 ACS-NSQIP database were included. Pre- and intra-operative factors were examined. Multivariable logistic regression and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to assess for an association between drainage system (PG vs. AS) and morbidity. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). RESULTS: In total, 3430 patients were included: 563 (16.4%) with PG and 2867 (83.6%) with AS drainage system. On multivariable regression, 1787 patients were included. Drainage type was not associated with POPF, surgical site infection, delayed gastric emptying, or re-operation. AS drainage was protective against percutaneous drain insertion (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96, p = 0.033). In the CEM cohort (n = 268), superficial SSI was higher in the AS group (0.8% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.036). There was a trend toward higher rates of composite total SSI (PG 15.7%, AS 23.9%, p = 0.092) and organ space SSI (PG 14.2%, AS 20.2%, p = 0.195) in the AS group; this did not demonstrate statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that AS drainage is protective against percutaneous drain insertion, but may be associated with increased risk of SSI. There was no relation between drainage type and POPF. A prospective, randomized controlled trial is warranted to further explore these findings.
Authors: N A van der Gaag; J J Kloek; J K de Bakker; B Musters; R B Geskus; O R C Busch; A Bosma; D J Gouma; T M van Gulik Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Marchegiani; Christos Dervenis; Micheal Sarr; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mustapha Adham; Peter Allen; Roland Andersson; Horacio J Asbun; Marc G Besselink; Kevin Conlon; Marco Del Chiaro; Massimo Falconi; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Thilo Hackert; Jakob Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Attila Olah; Richard Schulick; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Tadahiro Takada; Kyoichi Takaori; William Traverso; Charles R Vollmer; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles J Yeo; Roberto Salvia; Marcus Buchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Mira Shiloach; Stanley K Frencher; Janet E Steeger; Katherine S Rowell; Kristine Bartzokis; Majed G Tomeh; Karen E Richards; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce L Hall Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-11-22 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Matthew T McMillan; John D Christein; Mark P Callery; Stephen W Behrman; Jeffrey A Drebin; Robert H Hollis; Tara S Kent; Benjamin C Miller; Michael H Sprys; Ammara A Watkins; Steven M Strasberg; Charles M Vollmer Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-12-06 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Pauline Quach; Erik von Elm; Astrid Guttmann; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Liam Smeeth; Sinéad M Langan; Eric I Benchimol Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bradley R Hall; Zachary H Egr; Robert W Krell; James C Padussis; Valerie K Shostrom; Chandrakanth Are; Bradley N Reames Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.754