Literature DB >> 7081917

A randomised prospective trial of two drainage methods after cholecystectomy.

I Fraser, N W Everson, J R Nash.   

Abstract

A prospective trial is described in which simple tube drainage was compared with suction drainage after cholecystectomy. Postoperative chest infection and infected or painful drain wounds were both significantly more common with simple tube drains. Postoperative discomfort was more frequent with tube drains in situ and wound infection more common in the suction group, but neither of these differences was statistically significant. The mean volume of fluid drained and duration of hospital stay did not differ between methods. It is concluded that both methods are satisfactory, but suction drainage is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7081917      PMCID: PMC2493965     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  8 in total

1.  Cholecystectomy Without Drainage.

Authors:  R S Fowler
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1931-03       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  The physical and bacteriological properties of disposable and non-disposable suction drainage units in the laboratory.

Authors:  J S Lumley; B J Britton; B Chattopadhyay
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1974-10       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Cholecystectomy without drainage.

Authors:  A A Kambouris; W S Carpenter; R D Allaben
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1973-10

4.  Drainage following cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C B Williams; D S Halpin; A J Knox
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1972-04       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  The rational use of drains after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S Gupta; G Rauscher; R Stillman; J Fitzgerald; J C Powers
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1978-02

6.  Cholecystectomy with drainage. Factors influencing wound infection in 1,000 elective cases.

Authors:  G J Todd; K Reemtsma
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1978-05       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Drainage after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C P Chilton; C V Mann
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Suction drainage. A study in wound healing.

Authors:  A I Maitland; A J Mathieson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 6.939

  8 in total
  9 in total

1.  Drainage after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  N P Ingram
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Drainage after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K E Hobbs
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Drainage after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  F E Weale
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Abdominal drainage following cholecystectomy: high, low, or no suction?

Authors:  T T McCormack; P D Abel; C D Collins
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Drainage after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  G Evans
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Clinical evaluation of closed suction drainage following hepatectomy.

Authors:  S Uetsuji; A H Kwon; H Komada; Y Okuda; A Imamura; Y Kamiyama
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Routine Sub-hepatic Drainage versus No Drainage after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Open, Randomized, Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Muhammad Shamim
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 8.  Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated open cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K S Gurusamy; K Samraj
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

9.  Editorial Comment on: Andrzej Smereczyński, Teresa Starzyńska, Katarzyna Kołaczyk and Józef Kładny Role of sonography in assessing complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Wiesław Tarnowski
Journal:  J Ultrason       Date:  2014-06-30
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.