Literature DB >> 7729740

Closed-suction drainage versus no drainage following radical abdominal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB cervical cancer.

B Patsner1.   

Abstract

Over a 7-year period from 1987 to 1994, 120 patients consecutive patients with FIGO stage IB invasive cervical cancer who underwent type 3 radical abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy had either Jackson-Pratt closed-suction drainage (Group 1, patients 1-60) or no drainage (Group 2, patients 61-120). All surgeries were performed by the author in a uniform manner. No increase in postoperative pelvic infection, fistula, or lymphocyst formation was noted in the group of patients with no drainage following radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. Routine closed-suction drainage following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy may be safely omitted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7729740     DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1995.1131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  8 in total

1.  Is prophylactic placement of drains necessary after subtotal gastrectomy?

Authors:  Manoj Kumar; Seung Bong Yang; Vijay Kumar Jaiswal; Jay N Shah; Manish Shreshtha; Rajesh Gongal
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-07-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  A multi-disciplinary review of the potential association between closed-suction drains and surgical site infection.

Authors:  Alyssa J Reiffel; Philip S Barie; Jason A Spector
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 2.150

3.  Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection.

Authors:  K C Conlon; D Labow; D Leung; A Smith; W Jarnagin; D G Coit; N Merchant; M F Brennan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  John E Musser; Melissa Assel; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Prachee Pathak; Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; Melanie Bernstein; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 5.  Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies.

Authors:  Kittipat Charoenkwan; Chumnan Kietpeerakool
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-06-04

6.  Omental flap after pelvic exenteration for pelvic cancer.

Authors:  Yuji Miyamoto; Takahiko Akiyama; Yasuo Sakamoto; Ryuma Tokunaga; Mayuko Ohuchi; Hironobu Shigaki; Junji Kurashige; Masaaki Iwatsuki; Yoshifumi Baba; Naoya Yoshida; Hideo Baba
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Prevention of lymphocele development in gynecologic cancers by the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device.

Authors:  Naotake Tsuda; Kimio Ushijima; Kouichiro Kawano; Shuji Takemoto; Shin Nishio; Gounosuke Sonoda; Toshiharu Kamura
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hong-Yu Zhang; Chun-Lin Zhao; Jing Xie; Yan-Wei Ye; Jun-Feng Sun; Zhao-Hui Ding; Hua-Nan Xu; Li Ding
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 2.571

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.