Ahmed Farag1,2,3, Jeffrey J Gaynor1,2, Giuseppe Serena4, Gaetano Ciancio5,6,7,8,9. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 2. Miami Transplant Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Zagazig University School of Medicine, Zagazig, Egypt. 4. Department of Surgery, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, NY, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. gciancio@med.miami.edu. 6. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. gciancio@med.miami.edu. 7. Miami Transplant Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. gciancio@med.miami.edu. 8. Department of Surgery and Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA. gciancio@med.miami.edu. 9. Miami Transplant Institute, 1801 NW 9th Ave, 7th Floor, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. gciancio@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Routine placement of surgical drains at the time of kidney transplant has been debated in terms of its prognostic value. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the placement of a surgical drain affects the incidence rate of developing wound complications and other clinical outcomes, particularly after controlling for other prognostic factors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 500 consecutive renal transplant cases who did not (Drain-free, DF) vs. did (Drain, D) receive a drain at the time of transplant was performed. The primary outcome was the development of any wound complication (superficial or deep) during the first 12 months post-transplant. Secondary outcomes included the development of superficial wound complications, deep wound complications, DGF, and graft loss during the first 12 months post-transplant. RESULTS: 388 and 112 recipients had DF/D, respectively. DF-recipients were significantly more likely to be younger, not have pre-transplant diabetes, receive a living donor kidney, receive a kidney-alone transplant, have a shorter duration of dialysis, shorter mean cold-ischemia-time, and greater pre-transplant use of anticoagulants/antiplatelets. Wound complications were 4.6% (18/388) vs. 5.4% (6/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.75). Superficial wound complications were observed in 0.8% (3/388) vs. 0.0% (0/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.35). Deep wound complications were observed in 4.1% (16/388) vs. 5.4% ((6/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.57). Higher recipient body mass index and ≥ 1 year of pre-transplant dialysis were associated in multivariable analysis with an increased incidence of wound complications. Once the prognostic influence of these 2 factors were controlled, there was still no notable effect of drain use (yes/no). The lack of prognostic effect of drain use was similarly observed for the other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a relatively large cohort of renal transplant recipients, routine surgical drain use appears to offer no distinct prognostic advantage.
INTRODUCTION: Routine placement of surgical drains at the time of kidney transplant has been debated in terms of its prognostic value. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the placement of a surgical drain affects the incidence rate of developing wound complications and other clinical outcomes, particularly after controlling for other prognostic factors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 500 consecutive renal transplant cases who did not (Drain-free, DF) vs. did (Drain, D) receive a drain at the time of transplant was performed. The primary outcome was the development of any wound complication (superficial or deep) during the first 12 months post-transplant. Secondary outcomes included the development of superficial wound complications, deep wound complications, DGF, and graft loss during the first 12 months post-transplant. RESULTS: 388 and 112 recipients had DF/D, respectively. DF-recipients were significantly more likely to be younger, not have pre-transplant diabetes, receive a living donor kidney, receive a kidney-alone transplant, have a shorter duration of dialysis, shorter mean cold-ischemia-time, and greater pre-transplant use of anticoagulants/antiplatelets. Wound complications were 4.6% (18/388) vs. 5.4% (6/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.75). Superficial wound complications were observed in 0.8% (3/388) vs. 0.0% (0/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.35). Deep wound complications were observed in 4.1% (16/388) vs. 5.4% ((6/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.57). Higher recipient body mass index and ≥ 1 year of pre-transplant dialysis were associated in multivariable analysis with an increased incidence of wound complications. Once the prognostic influence of these 2 factors were controlled, there was still no notable effect of drain use (yes/no). The lack of prognostic effect of drain use was similarly observed for the other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a relatively large cohort of renal transplant recipients, routine surgical drain use appears to offer no distinct prognostic advantage.
Authors: C G Groth; L Bäckman; J M Morales; R Calne; H Kreis; P Lang; J L Touraine; K Claesson; J M Campistol; D Durand; L Wramner; C Brattström; B Charpentier Journal: Transplantation Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Stuart M Flechner; Lingmei Zhou; Ithaar Derweesh; Barbara Mastroianni; Kathy Savas; David Goldfarb; Charles S Modlin; Venkatesh Krishnamurthi; Andrew Novick Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-12-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Mahesh Goel; Stuart M Flechner; Lingme Zhou; Barbara Mastroianni; Kathy Savas; Ithaar Derweesh; Pratik Patel; Charles Modlin; David Goldfarb; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christoph Troppmann; Jonathan L Pierce; Mehul M Gandhi; Brian J Gallay; John P McVicar; Richard V Perez Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-07-27 Impact factor: 4.939