Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection

Impact of ERAS approach and minimally-invasive techniques on outcome of patients undergoing liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Aim of the study was to assess the impact of ERAS approach ("fluid restrictive and drainless") on open liver resections for HCC comparing their outcome with open resections in pre-ERAS period and with laparoscopic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

207 patients undergoing minor liver resection for HCC were divided into three groups: Group A, open minor resections in pre-ERAS period (95 patients); Group B, laparoscopic ERAS resections (55 patients); Group C, open ERAS resections (57 patients).

RESULTS

Blood loss was lower in group C and B compared with group A. Postoperative morbidity was 26.5% in group A, 16.3% in group B and 12.1% in group C (p<0.05). Ascites was less frequent in group B (7.5%) and C (6.2%) compared with group A (12%). Median time for functional recovery in group B (3 days) and C (3 days) was shorter compared with group A (5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach confirms to be associated with reduced blood loss and postoperative morbidity. In patients who cannot be candidates to minimally-invasive approach, ERAS management seems to allow blood loss and postoperative morbidity reduction: indeed, results achieved in this group of patients are more similar to those of laparoscopy than to pre-ERAS open surgery.

Prospective Validation of Optimal Drain Management “The 3 × 3 Rule” after Liver Resection

Background

We previously established an optimal postoperative drain management rule after liver resection (i.e., drain removal on postoperative day 3 if the drain fluid bilirubin concentration is <3 mg/dl) from the results of 514 drains of 316 consecutive patients. This test set predicts that 274 of 316 patients (87.0 %) will be safely managed without adverse events when drain management is performed without deviation from the rule.

Objective

To validate the feasibility of our rule in recent time period.

Methods

The data from 493 drains of 274 consecutive patients were prospectively collected. Drain fluid volumes, bilirubin levels, and bacteriological cultures were measured on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, 5, and 7. The drains were removed according to the management rule. The achievement rate of the rule, postoperative adverse events, hospital stay, medical costs, and predictive value for reoperation according to the rule were validated.

Results

The rule was achieved in 255 of 274 (93.1 %) patients. The drain removal time was significantly shorter [3 days (1–30) vs. 7 (2–105), p < 0.01], drain fluid infection was less frequent [4 patients (1.5 %) vs. 58 (18.4 %), p < 0.01], postoperative hospital stay was shorter [11 days (6–73) vs. 16 (9–59), p = 0.04], and medical costs were decreased [1453 USD (968–6859) vs. 1847 (4667–9498), p < 0.01] in the validation set compared with the test set. Five patients who required reoperation were predicted by the drain‐based information and treated within 2 days after operation.

Conclusions

Our 3 × 3 rule is clinically feasible and allows for the early removal of the drain tube with minimum infection risk after liver resection.

Risk Factors and Managements of Bile Leakage After Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively determine the risk factors and evaluate the management of bile leakage.

METHODS

Three hundred and thirty-four patients who underwent hepatectomy for Child classification grade A liver disease, without biliary reconstruction and laparoscopic procedures, between 2003 and 2013 were included. Risk factors were identified using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Bile leakage was observed in 30 (9.0%) patients. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that type of hepatectomy (segmentectomy 1, medial sectionectomy, anterior sectionectomy, or central bisectionectomy) and operating time was independent risk factors for bile leakage. Among 30 patients with confirmed bile leakage, central type leakage that was in communication with the biliary tree occurred in 23 (76.7%) patients and peripheral type, which was not in communication with the biliary tree, in 7 (23.3%) patients. Ten patients were treated with only drainage. Endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic procedures were performed in 15 cases with central type leakage. Ablation treatment using ethanol or minocycline was mainly performed for peripheral type leakage. Four cases with central type leakage had strictures of the right hepatic duct. Two of them were treated with ablation treatment, portal vein embolization, or fistulojejunostomy. Median duration from diagnosis to end of therapy was 77 days (11-323) in central type and 44 days (6-123) in peripheral type leakage, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Complex hepatectomy and operating time are independent risk factors for postoperative bile leakage. Biliary exploration should be performed as soon as possible after diagnosis, because most bile leakage is the central type. Central type of bile leakage is sometimes refractory to therapy, needing various treatments and requiring a long time for recovery.

Effects of implementing an "enhanced recovery after surgery" program on patients undergoing resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of implementing an "enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) program on the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of extensive and potentially curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We compared clinicopathologic factors, surgical factors, and outcomes of patients who underwent extended hepatectomy (defined as resection of more than two sections) for HCC, before and after the introduction of an ERAS program.

RESULTS

Operating times and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter, and total volume infused during surgery was significantly lower, for the ERAS group than for the control group. Although the ERAS group had a significantly lower percentage of patients with retention of abdominal drainage, this group had a higher frequency of abdominal paracentesis in patients without intraoperative abdominal drainage. Oral dietary intake and the ability to walk steadily resumed significantly earlier in the ERAS group. Postoperative serum concentrations of albumin and cholinesterase were significantly higher in the ERAS group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS program was feasible and effective for patients with chronic liver disease undergoing extended liver resection for HCC, because it allowed earlier oral dietary intake and promoted faster postoperative recovery.

Clinical score to predict the risk of bile leakage after liver resection

Background

In liver resection, bile leakage remains the most common cause of operative morbidity. In order to predict the risk of this complication on the basis of various factors, we developed a clinical score system to predict the potential risk of bile leakage after liver resection.

Methods

We analyzed the postoperative course in 518 patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy to identify independent predictors of bile leakage, which was defined as “a drain fluid bilirubin concentration at least three times the serum bilirubin concentration on or after postoperative day 3,” as proposed by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. To confirm the robustness of the risk score system for bile leakage, we analyzed the independent series of 289 patients undergoing liver resection for malignancy.

Results

Among 81 (15.6 %) patients with bile leakage, 76 had grade A bile leakage, and five had grade C leakage and underwent reoperation. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in patients with bile leakage (median, 14 days; range, 8 to 34) than in those without bile leakage (11 days; 5 to 62; P = 0.001). There was no hepatic insufficiency or in-hospital death. The risk score model was based on the four independent predictors of postoperative bile leakage: non-anatomical resection (odds ratio, 3.16; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.72 to 6.07; P < 0.001), indocyanine green clearance rate (2.43; 1.32 to 7.76; P = 0.004), albumin level (2.29; 1.23 to 4.22; P = 0.01), and weight of resected specimen (1.97; 1.11 to 3.51; P = 0.02). When this risk score system was used to assign patients to low-, middle-, and high-risk groups, the frequency of bile leakage in the high-risk group was 2.64 (95 % CI, 1.12 to 6.41; P = 0.04) than that in the low-risk group. Among the independent series for validation, 4 (5.7 %), 16 (10.0 %), and 10 (16.6 %) patients in low-, middle, and high-risk groups were given a diagnosis of bile leakage after operation, respectively (P = 0.144).

Conclusions

Our risk score model can be used to predict the risk of bile leakage after liver resection.

Symptomatic Perihepatic Fluid Collections After Hepatic Resection in the Modern Era

BACKGROUND

Improvements in liver surgery have led to decreased mortality rates. Symptomatic perihepatic collections (SPHCs) requiring percutaneous drainage remain a significant source of morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

A single institution's prospectively maintained hepatic resection database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent hepatectomy between January 2004 and February 2012.

RESULTS

Data from 2173 hepatectomies performed in 2040 patients were reviewed. Overall, 200 (9%) patients developed an SPHC, the majority non-bilious (75.5%) and infected (54%). Major hepatic resections, larger than median blood loss (≥360 ml), use of surgical drains, and simultaneous performance of a colorectal procedure were associated with an SPHC on multivariate analysis. Non-bilious, non-infected (NBNI) collections were associated with lower white blood cell (WBC) counts, absence of a bilio-enteric anastomosis, use of hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP), and presence of metastatic disease, and resolved more frequently with a single interventional radiology (IR) procedure (85 vs. 46.5%, p < 0.001) more quickly (15 vs. 30 days, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SPHCs developed in 9% of patients in a modern series of hepatic resections, and in one third were non-bilious and non-infected. In the era of modern interventional radiology, the need for re-operation for SPHC is exceedingly rare. A significant proportion of minimally symptomatic SPHC patients may not require drainage, and strategies to avoid unnecessary drainage are warranted.

Gall Bladder Cancer

Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most common biliary epithelial malignancy, with an estimated 10,910 new cases and 3700 deaths per year (Siegel et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 65:5–29, 2015 [1]). This disease’s insidious nature and typically late presentation place it among the most lethal of invasive neoplasms. Gallbladder cancer spreads early by lymphatic or hematogenous metastasis and by direct invasion into the liver. While surgery may well be curative at early stages, both surgical and nonsurgical treatments remain largely unsuccessful in patients with more advanced disease.

Diagnosis and Management of Bile Leaks After Hepatectomy: Results of a Prospective Analysis of 475 Hepatectomies

Background

The diagnosis and management of bile leaks after hepatectomy are heterogeneous because there is no agreement on the definition of post‐hepatectomy biliary fistula. The aim of this study was to validate our definition and management of biliary fistulas after hepatic resection and to compare our results with those proposed by other authors.

Methods

A prospective series of patients who underwent hepatic resection from 2004 to 2012 were established. Drains were maintained for 7 days, and bilirubin was measured on postoperative days (PODs) 3, 5, and 7. Drains were removed if the bilirubin on POD 7 was less than that on POD 5 and less than 171 µmol/l (10 mg/dl). A statistical analysis of prognostic factors for biliary fistula was performed.

Results

Among 475 consecutive patients, 39 (8 %) had biliary fistulas. Only 8 (1.7 %) patients required postoperative interventions. In comparison with other studies, we observed a higher rate of bile leaks, but at the same time, we observed a lower rate of interventional procedures. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on POD 7 had the highest predictive value (0.81; P < 0.001). Pringle maneuvers lasting ≥90 min (OR = 3.4; P < 0.001), extended resections (OR = 6.4; P = 0.007), blood transfusions (OR = 2.4; P = 0.035), and resections including segment I (OR = 1.9; P = 0.033) or segment V (OR = 1.8; P = 0.024) were independently associated with an increased risk of bile leak.

Conclusions

The proposed definition of biliary fistula provides effective recognition of those that are clinically relevant with a reduction of the risk of unrecognized collections and minimal postoperative morbidity. Registration Number: NCT02056028 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Is there still a need for prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage in elective major gastro-intestinal surgery?

Prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity after gastro-intestinal surgery is widely used. The rationale is that intra-abdominal drainage enhances early detection of complications (gastro-intestinal leakage, hemorrhage, bile leak), prevents collection of fluid or pus, reduces morbidity and mortality, and decreases the duration of hospital stay. However, dogmatic attitudes favoring systematic drain placement should be questioned. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence supporting systematic use of prophylactic abdominal drainage following gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, and rectal resection. Based on this review of the literature: (i) there was no evidence in favor of intra-peritoneal drainage following total or sub-total gastrectomy with respect to morbidity-mortality, nor was it helpful in the diagnosis or management of leakage, however the level of evidence is low, (ii) following pancreatic resection, data are conflicting but, overall, suggest that the absence of drainage is prejudicial, and support the notion that short-term drainage is better than long-term drainage, (iii) after liver resection without hepatico-intestinal anastomosis, high level evidence supports that there is no need for abdominal drainage, and (iv) following rectal resection, data are insufficient to establish recommendations. However, results from the French multicenter randomized controlled trial GRECCAR5 (NCT01269567) should provide new evidence this coming year. Accumulating data support that systematic drainage of the abdominal cavity in digestive surgery is a non-beneficial and obsolete practice, except following pancreatectomy where the consensus appears to indicate the usefulness of short-term drainage. While the level of evidence is high for liver resections, new randomized controlled trials are awaited regarding gastric, pancreatic and rectal surgery.

Abdominal drainage after liver transplantation from deceased donors

PURPOSE

Traditionally, abdominal drainage (AD) is routinely inserted in patients after liver transplantation (LT) to drain ascites and to detect postoperative hemorrhage and bile leakage. However, the benefit of this surgical practice remains a matter of debate regarding potential drainage-associated morbidities.

METHODS

In a retrospective pair-matched analysis in a 1:1 ratio, 116 patients after LT were assessed with regards to benefits and risks of abdominal drainage under immunosuppression, respecting model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), age, and gender.

RESULTS

The indications for LT were comparable between the drain and the no-drain group. There was an increased rate of early bile leakage in patients with abdominal drainage (13.8 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.032). In addition, a significantly higher incidence of infections requiring antibiotic therapy was observed in the drain group (63.8 vs. 39.7%, p = 0.015). The contribution of drains as a diagnostic tool was marginal, as in the drain group, other diagnostic tools than the drain itself confirmed 50% of all early bile leakages and 60% of postoperative hemorrhages. Overall, there was no difference regarding the incidence of incisional hernia after LT (8.6 vs. 10.3%, p = 1.000), length of hospital stay (22.9 ± 18.7 vs. 18.6 ± 18.6 days, p = 0.215), and 1- and 5-year patient (p = 0.981) and graft survival (p = 0.092).

CONCLUSIONS

Equal results can be achieved with or without an abdominal drain in recipients with whole-liver grafts in spite of an increased risk of postoperative infection and biliary leakage in the former group. A benefit of AD as a diagnostic tool could not be demonstrated.

Impact of abdominal drainage systems on postoperative complication rates following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Depending on the extent of surgery, coagulation status and the number of anastomoses, drains are routinely used during liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare different drain types with regard to abdominal complication rates.

METHODS

All consecutive full-size orthotopic liver transplantations (LTX) performed over a 7-year period were included in this retrospective analysis. Abdominal drain groups were divided into open-circuit drains and closed-circuit drains. Data are reported as total number (%) or median (range); for all comparisons a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 256 LTX [age 56.89 (0.30-75.21) years; MELD 14.5 (7-40)] was included; 56 (21.8 %) patients received an open-circuit Easy Flow Drain (Group 1) and 200 (78.2 %) a closed-circuit Robinson Drainage System (Group 2). For Groups 1 and 2, overall infection rates were 78.6 and 56 % (p = 0.001), abdominal infection rates 50.82 and 21.92 % (p = 0.001), yeast infection rates 37 and 23 % (p = 0.02), abdominal bleeding rates 26.78 and 17 % (p = 0.07), biliary complication rates 14.28 and 13.5 % (p = 0.51), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective series, open-circuit drains were associated with more abdominal complications, mainly due to intraabdominal infections, than were closed-circuit drains.

Applicability of enhanced recovery program for advanced liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been developed in various surgical fields and have been shown to accelerate postoperative recovery without increasing the incidence of adverse events. Whether ERP can be safely applied to patients undergoing complex liver surgery with a risk of liver failure remains unclear.

METHODS

We created an ERP by rearranging our conventional postoperative treatments and applied this program to patients undergoing major hepatectomy between 2008 and 2013. The ERP elements included greater perioperative education, individualized postoperative fluid therapy, and early mobilization. The success of the ERP was evaluated on postoperative day (POD) 6 based on the criterion of independence from continuous medical intervention with the exception of an abdominal drainage tube. Adherence to each item in the ERP was evaluated, and risk factors for delayed accomplishment were analyzed.

RESULTS

Altogether, 200 patients were included, and 165 patients (82.5 %) completed the ERP. Multivariate analyses showed that (1) an age of 65 years or older and (2) a red blood cell transfusion were independent risk factors for delayed accomplishment. The performance of thoracotomy or choledocojejunostomy did not significantly affect accomplishment of the ERP. Oral intake starting on POD 1 was achieved in 179 patients (89.5 %), and termination of intravenous drip infusions on POD 5 was feasible in 72.5 %.

CONCLUSIONS

An ERP for major hepatectomy was completed in more than 80 % of the patients. Earlier bowel movement can be challenged. The liquid in-out balance should be adjusted on an individual basis, rather than uniformly, especially for patients over 65 years of age or who required a red blood cell transfusion.

Safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery pathway after a liver resection: prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In contrast to colorectal surgery, enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have not yet become standard practice after major upper abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes after implementation of an ERP after liver a resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a liver resection in two consecutive 6-month periods before (July-December 2013) and after (January-June 2014) implementation of an ERP were included in a prospective study. Patients who underwent live donation, ALPPS (associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy) or concomitant procedures were excluded. Peri-operative outcomes were compared between groups, and multivariate analysis of factors influencing the length of hospital stay (LOS) was performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eleven patients (93 pre-ERP and 91 post-ERP patients) underwent a liver resection during the study period. There was no significant difference in the median LOS (P = 0.907) and 30-day readmission rates (P = 0.645) between the groups. Severe (Clavien grade III-V) complications were reduced in ERP patients (13.9% versus 4.3%; P = 0.039). On multivariate analysis, an increased age (< 0.001), open resection (< 0.001) and complications (< 0.001) were associated with an increased LOS.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced recovery after a liver resection appears to be safe, feasible and may reduce severe complications. However, the LOS was significantly influenced by patient age, open surgery and post-operative complications, but not by an ERP.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection

AIM: To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.

METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg’s funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.

RESULTS: Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.

Significance of prophylactic intra-abdominal drain placement after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Unnecessary intra-abdominal drain insertion must be avoided, but little is known about the value of prophylactic drainage following laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). In this study, we investigated the significance of prophylactic drain placement after LDG for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-eight consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent LDG in our department were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the insertion of a prophylactic intra-abdominal drain following LDG. The 'drain group' comprised 45 patients with routine use of a prophylactic intra-abdominal drain, and the 'no-drain group' comprised 33 patients who did not undergo placement of an intra-abdominal drain.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in terms of the mean age of the patients, male/female ratio, body mass index, and concurrent diseases between the drain group and the no-drain group. In addition, there were no significant differences in the tumor location, tumor diameter, depth of the tumor, nodal metastasis, and tumor stage between the two groups. All patients in each group were successfully treated with R0 surgery, and no patient required conversion to open surgery. Surgery-related factors, including lymph node dissection and operative time, were similar in the drain group and the no-drain group. A comparison of the amount of intraoperative blood loss between patients with and without postoperative complications revealed that patients who experienced postoperative complications had a significantly larger amount of blood loss than those without postoperative complications. A comparison of operative times between patients with and without surgery-related postoperative local complications revealed that patients who experienced surgery-related postoperative local complications had a significantly longer operative time than those without surgery-related postoperative local complications. Analysis of operative times in each group revealed that patients with surgery-related postoperative local complications had a significantly longer operative time than those without surgery-related postoperative local complications in the no-drain group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative factors such as the operative time and the amount of intraoperative blood loss affected the occurrence of postoperative complications following LDG. A prophylactic drain may thus be useful in patients at higher risk and in those with a longer operative time or massive intraoperative bleeding.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Patterns of care among patients undergoing hepatic resection: a query of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-targeted hepatectomy database

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons recently added liver-specific variables to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). We sought to use these variables to define patterns of care, as well as characterize perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing hepatic resection.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons-NSQIP database was queried for all patients undergoing hepatic resection between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 (n = 2448). Liver-specific variables were summarized.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, 11.3% of patients had hepatitis B or C or both, whereas 9.2% had cirrhosis. The indication for hepatic resection was benign (20.8%) or malignant (74.2%) disease. Among patients with a malignant indication, metastatic disease (47.3%) was more common than primary liver cancer (26.9%). Preoperative treatment included neoadjuvant chemotherapy (25.5%), portal vein embolization (2.1%), and intra-arterial therapy (0.9%). At surgery, most patients underwent an open hepatic resection (70.7%), whereas 21.4% and 1.1% underwent a laparoscopic or robotic procedure. The Pringle maneuver was used in 27.7% of patients. Although 6.5% of patients had a concomitant hepaticojejunostomy, 10.1% had a concurrent ablation. An operative drain was placed in half of patients (46.5%, minor resection: 42.0% versus major resection: 53.4%; P < 0.001). Among the entire cohort, bile leak (7.3%, minor resection: 4.9% versus major resection: 10.9%; P < 0.001) and liver insufficiency and/or failure (3.8%, minor resection: 1.9% versus major resection: 6.9%; P < 0.001) were relatively uncommon. A subset of patients (9.5%) did experience major liver-specific complications that required intervention (drainage of collection and/or abscess: 38.4%; stenting for biliary obstruction and/or leak: 21.2%; biloma drainage: 18.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to standard variables, the new inclusion of liver-specific variables provides a unique opportunity to study NSQIP outcomes and practice patterns among patients undergoing hepatic resection.

Prospective evaluation of the International Study Group for Liver Surgery definition of bile leak after a liver resection and the role of routine operative drainage: an international multicentre study

BACKGROUND

The International Study Group for Liver Surgery (ISGLS) proposed a definition for bile leak after liver surgery. A multicentre international prospective study was designed to evaluate this definition.

METHODS

Data collected prospectively from 949 consecutive patients on specific datasheets from 11 international centres were collated centrally.

RESULTS

Bile leak occurred in 69 (7.3%) of patients, with 31 (3.3%), 32 (3.4%) and 6 (0.6%) classified as grade A, B and C, respectively. The grading system of severity correlated with the Dindo complication classification system (P < 0.001). Hospital length of stay was increased when bile leak occurred, from a median of 7 to 15 days (P < 0.001), as was intensive care stay (P < 0.001), and both correlated with increased severity grading of bile leak (P < 0.001). 96% of bile leaks occurred in patients with intra-operative drains. Drain placement did not prevent subsequent intervention in the bile leak group with a 5-15 times greater risk of intervention required in this group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The ISGLS definition of bile leak after liver surgery appears robust and intra-operative drain usage did not prevent the need for subsequent drain placement.

The role of peri-hepatic drain placement in liver surgery: a prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard use of an intra-operative perihepatic drain (IPD) in liver surgery is controversial and mainly supported by retrospective data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of IPD in liver surgery.

METHODS

All patients included in a previous, randomized trial were analysed to determine the association between IPD placement, post-operative complications (PC) and treatment. A multivariate analysis identified predictive factors of PC.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine patients were included in the final analysis of which 114 (57%) had colorectal liver metastases. IPD (n = 87, 44%) was associated with pre-operative biliary instrumentation (P = 0.023), intra-operative bleeding (P < 0.011), Pringle's manoeuver(P < 0.001) and extent of resection (P = 0.001). Seventy-seven (39%) patients had a PC, which was associated with pre-operative biliary instrumentation (P = 0.048), extent of resection (P = 0.002) and a blood transfusion (P = 0.001). Patients with IPD had a higher rate of high-grade PC (25% versus 12%, P = 0.008). Nineteen patients (9.5%) developed a post-operative collection [IPD (n = 10, 11.5%) vs. no drains (n = 9, 8%), P = 0.470]. Seven (8%) patients treated with and 9(8%) without a IPD needed a second drain after surgery, P = 1. Resection of ≥3 segments was the only independent factor associated with PC [odds ratio (OR) = 2, P = 0.025, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-3.7].

DISCUSSION

In spite of preferential IPD use in patients with more complex tumours/resections, IPD did not decrease the rate of PC, collections and the need for a percutaneous post-operative drain. IPD should be reserved for exceptional circumstances in liver surgery.

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

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of eliminating routine drain placement in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) on the risk of postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An experienced single surgeon performed RALP on 651 consecutive patients at our institution from 2008 to 2012. Before August 2011, RALP with or without PLND included a routine peritoneal drain placed during surgery. Thereafter, routine intraoperative placement of drains was omitted, except for intraoperatively noted anastomotic leakage. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare complication rates between study periods and the actual drain placement status after adjusting for standard prespecified covariates.

RESULTS

Most patients (92%) did not have ≥grade 2 complications after surgery and only two patients (0.3%) experienced a grade 4 complication. The absolute adjusted risk of a grade 2-5 complication was 0.9% greater among those treated before August 2011 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3%-5.1%; p=0.7), while absolute adjusted risk of a grade 3-5 complication was 2.8% less (-2.8%; 95% CI-5.3%-0.1%; p=0.061). RESULTS based on drain status were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine peritoneal drain placement following RALP with PLND did not confer a significant advantage in terms of postoperative complications. Further data are necessary to confirm that it is safe to omit drains in most patients.

Intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection: is it really necessary? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic fistula (PF) is the most dreadful complication of patients after pancreatic resection. The use of operative site drains is considered routine all along in pancreatic surgery in order to remove any collections and to act as a warning of hemorrhage or anastomotic leakage. To date few studies investigated the potential benefit and safety of routine drainage compared with no drainage after pancreatic resection and the evidence by literature is not clear.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library up to 28th February 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. The currently available data regarding the incidence of post-operative short-term outcomes after pancreatic resection were meta-analyzed according to the presence or absence of the intra-abdominal drainage.

RESULTS

Overall 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis, that is 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 non-RCTs resulting in 2704 patients totally. Intra-abdominal drainage showed to increase the PF (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.52-3.51), the total post-operative complications (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.30-1.78) and the re-admission (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.06-1.61) rates. A non-significant correlation was found with the presence/absence of the drainage about biliary and enteric fistula, post-operative hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infected collection, wound infection and overall mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis shows that the presence of an intra-abdominal drainage does not improve the post-operative outcome after pancreatic resection.

Non-hepatic gastrointestinal surgery in patients with cirrhosis

Gastrointestinal surgery is feasible in patients with Child A cirrhosis, but is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Hernia repair, biliary and colonic surgery are the most frequently performed interventions in this context. Esophageal and pancreatic surgery are more controversial and less frequently performed. For patients with decompensated liver function (Child B or C patients), the indications for surgery should be discussed by a multi-specialty team including the hepatologist, anesthesiologist, surgeon; liver function should be optimized if possible. During emergency surgery, histologic diagnosis of cirrhosis should be confirmed by liver biopsy because the histologic diagnosis has therapeutic and prognostic implications. The management of patients with Child A cirrhosis without portal hypertension is little different from the management of patients without cirrhosis. However, the management of patients with Child B or C cirrhosis or with portal hypertension is more complex and requires an accurate assessment of the balance of benefit vs. risk for surgical intervention on a case-by-case basis.

Using a 'no drain' policy in 342 laparoscopic hepatectomies: which factors predict failure?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict the failure of a 'no drain' policy in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Surgical outcomes in 342 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy were reviewed. Drains were placed only for the following predefined criteria: (i) intraoperative bile leak; (ii) bilioenteric anastomosis, and (iii) increased risk for postoperative bleeding ('no drain' policy). Factors leading to need for postoperative drainage or reoperation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Drains were placed in 44 patients (drainage group). Postoperatively, additional procedures were required in five (11.4%) patients in the drainage group and in 18 (6.0%) patients in the no-drainage group. Multivariate analysis suggested that blood loss of >400 ml [odds ratio (OR) 4.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-14.2; P = 0.010] and preoperative chemotherapy (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 0.82-6.48; P = 0.120) may increase the risk for need for postoperative procedures when intraoperative prophylactic drainage is not used.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic drainage during liver resection should be considered not only in the presence of uncontrollable bile leak or concern for postoperative bleeding risk, but also in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those in whom intraoperative blood loss is >400 ml. Otherwise, a 'no drain' policy is safe and would enhance the advantages of minimally invasive liver surgery.

Anaesthetic perioperative management of patients with pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer remains a significant and unresolved therapeutic challenge. Currently, the only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection. Pancreatic surgery represents a technically demanding major abdominal procedure that can occasionally lead to a number of pathophysiological alterations resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Systemic, rather than surgical complications, cause the majority of deaths. Because patients are increasingly referred to surgery with at advanced ages and because pancreatic surgery is extremely complex, anaesthesiologists and surgeons play a crucial role in preoperative evaluations and diagnoses for surgical intervention. The anaesthetist plays a key role in perioperative management and can significantly influence patient outcome. To optimise overall care, patients should be appropriately referred to tertiary centres, where multidisciplinary teams (surgical, medical, radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists and anaesthetists) work together and where close cooperation between surgeons and anaesthesiologists promotes the safe performance of major gastrointestinal surgeries with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. In this review, we sought to provide simple daily recommendations to the clinicians who manage pancreatic surgery patients to make their work easier and suggest a joint approach between surgeons and anaesthesiologists in daily decision making.

Proposal for a sub-classification of hepato-biliary-pancreatic operations for surgical site infection surveillance following assessment of results of prospective multicenter data

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance in Japan is based on the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance system, which categorizes all hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgeries, except for cholecystectomy, into "BILI." We evaluated differences among BILI procedures to determine the optimal subdivision for SSI surveillance.

METHODS

We conducted multicenter SSI surveillance at 20 hospitals. BILI was subdivided into choledochectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, hepatectomy, hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction, pancreatoduodenectomy with hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy and total pancreatectomy to determine the optimal subdivision. The outcome of interest was SSI. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive significance of variables in each type of surgery.

RESULTS

1,926 BILI cases were included in this study. SSI rates were 23.2 % for all BILI; for choledochectomy 23.6 %, pancreatoduodenectomy 39.3 %, hepatectomy 12.8 %, hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction 41.9 %, pancreatoduodenectomy with hepatectomy 27.3 %, distal pancreatectomy 31.8 %, and total pancreatectomy 20.0 %. SSI rates for hepatectomy were significantly lower than those for non-hepatectomy BILI. Risk factors for developing SSI with hepatectomy were drain placement and long operative duration, while for non-hepatectomy BILI, risk factors were use of intra-abdominal silk sutures, SSI risk index and long operative duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatectomy and non-hepatectomy BILI differ with regard to the incidence of and risk factors for developing SSI. These surgeries should be assessed separately when conducting SSI surveillance.

Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution

BACKGROUND

The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection was published from our institution approximately 10 years ago. The current study sought to evaluate the evolution of practice over the last 5 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2006 and June 2011, there were 1122 resections performed. Six surgeons were evenly grouped and compared by practice pattern: routine drainers (drains placed > 95%), selective drainers, and routine nondrainers (drains placed ∼15%). Prospectively recorded preoperative, operative, and morbidity data were assessed in uni- and multivariate models.

RESULTS

Our operative drainage rate was 49% and decreased over time (62% 2006-2008 vs 37% 2009-2011, P < 0.001). Patients without operative drains had significantly lower grade ≥3 overall morbidity (26% vs 33%; P = 0.01), shorter hospital stays (7 vs 8 days; P < 0.01), fewer readmissions (20% vs 27%; P = 0.01), and lower rates of grade ≥3 pancreatic fistula (16% vs 20%; P = 0.05). Similar reoperation (both <1%), interventional radiology procedures (15% vs 19%; P = 0.1), and mortality rates (2% vs 1%; P = 0.3) were seen in both groups. There were no differences between the routine drainers group (n = 248) and the nondrainers group (n = 478) in grade ≥3 fistula or need for interventional radiology-guided procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, operative drains were used nearly half of the time and were associated with longer hospital stay, and higher grade ≥3 morbidity, fistula, and readmission rates. They did not decrease the need for reintervention or alter mortality rates. Routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection could be safely abandoned.

[Surgical risk in patients with liver disease]

The author draws attention on the importance surgical risk analysis from patient's safety point of view. Recently the development in quality assurance affected surgical practice as well, hence determination and evaluation of surgical risk are more exactly defined. This resulted in a significant decrease in mortality during surgical interventions on the liver despite a wider indication and increased numbers, recently. Importantly, surgical risk is much higher in patients with liver disease compared to patients with normal liver. The risk of surgical interventions for liver diseases (HCC, tumor) in patients with diffuse liver diseases (cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis, ALD) can be expressed numerically. For many years the Child-Turcotte-Pugh stadium could have been determined by using actual laboratory values. Recently the "50-50 rule" or more frequently the MELD score -- originally used in the practice of liver transplantation -- mean objective expression of surgical risk. Treatment optimalisation can reduce surgical risk, selected on the basis of risk analysis in multidisciplinary settings, which focus on the need of liver surgeons.

Vascular inflow control during hemi-hepatectomy: a comparison between intrahepatic pedicle ligation and extrahepatic vascular ligation

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic pedicle ligation (IPL) is an alternative to extrahepatic portal dissection (EPD). Although IPL has been well described, concern has arisen over a possible association with increased complication rates.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hemi-hepatectomy during January 1995 to December 2010 were reviewed and the inflow control technique (IPL versus EPD) documented. Patient, tumour, treatment and outcome variables were compared.

RESULTS

  A total of 798 patients underwent hemi-hepatectomy, 568 (71.2%) of the right and 230 (28.8%) of the left liver. In univariate analysis, factors associated with the choice of IPL included surgeon, right hepatectomy, preoperative portal vein embolization, diagnosis of colorectal cancer liver metastasis, and smaller tumour size (P < 0.011). In multivariate analysis, right hepatectomy [versus left: hazard ratio (HR) 3.878, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-13.14; P = 0.029] and smaller tumour size (median of 4.5 cm versus 5.5 cm: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88; P = 0.002) were associated with IPL. Pringle manoeuvre time was longer in IPL procedures (40 min versus 29 min; P < 0.001). Complication rates (49.8% in IPL versus 48.4% in EPD; P = 0.706) were similar in both groups, as was the severity of complications; 17.6% of EPD and 22.3% of IPL patients experienced complications of grade ≥3 (P = 0.225).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small tumours undergoing right hepatectomy were more likely to undergo IPL. In selected patients, IPL was not associated with an increased complication rate and thus it should be considered a safe approach.

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

BACKGROUND

Despite the putative advantages conferred by closed-suction drains (CSDs), the widespread utilization of post-operative drains has been questioned due to concerns regarding both efficacy and safety, particularly with respect to the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Although discipline-specific reports exist delineating risk factors associated with SSI as they relate to the presence of CSDs, there are no broad summary studies to examine this issue in depth.

METHODS

The pertinent medical literature exploring the relationship between CSDs and SSI across multiple surgical disciplines was reviewed.

RESULTS

Across most surgical disciplines, studies to evaluate the risk of SSI associated with routine post-operative CSD have yielded conflicting results. A few studies do suggest an increased risk of SSI associated with drain placement, but are usually associated with open drainage and not the use of CSDs. No studies whatsoever attribute a decrease in the incidence of SSI (including organ/space SSI) to drain placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Until additional, rigorous randomized trials are available to address the issue definitively, we recommend judicious use and prompt, timely removal of CSDs. Given that the evidence is scant and weak to suggest that CSD use is associated with increased risk of SSI, there is no justification for the prolongation of antibiotic prophylaxis to "cover" an indwelling drain.

Criteria for drain removal following liver resection

BACKGROUND

Abdominal drains have been placed prophylactically and removed in liver resection without robust evidence. The present study was designed to establish the optimal time for removal of such drains.

METHODS

Data on abdominal prophylactic drains were analysed in a consecutive series of patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy between 2006 and 2009. Bilirubin levels in drain fluid were measured and bacteriological cultures were taken on days 1, 3, 5 and 7 after surgery. Drains were removed on day 3 if the drain-fluid bilirubin level was less than 5 mg/dl and bacteriological cultures were negative. Drains remained in situ until these conditions were met.

RESULTS

A total of 514 abdominal drains were placed in 316 patients operated on in the study period. Fifty-eight patients (18·4 per cent) had positive drain-fluid cultures and 14 (4·4 per cent) had bile leakage (drain-fluid bilirubin level 5 mg/dl or more). Only one patient required ultrasound-guided abdominal drainage. On multivariable analysis, drain-fluid bilirubin level on day 3 after surgery was the strongest predictor of infection (odds ratio 15·11, 95 per cent confidence interval 3·04 to 92·11; P < 0·001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on day 3 had the highest predictive value: 83·6 per cent accuracy and 3·9 per cent false-positive rate for a drain-fluid bilirubin level of 3·01 mg/dl (51·5 µmol/l).

CONCLUSION

The '3 × 3 rule' (drain-fluid bilirubin level below 3 mg/dl on day 3 after operation) is an accurate criterion for removal of prophylactically placed abdominal drains in liver resection.

Evaluation of a fast-track programme for patients undergoing liver resection

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in perioperative pathophysiology and care have documented evidence-based, multimodal rehabilitation (fast-track) to hasten recovery and to decrease morbidity and hospital stay for several major surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of introducing fast-track principles for perioperative care in unselected patients undergoing open or laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

This was a prospective study involving the first 100 consecutive patients who followed fast-track principles for liver resection. Catheters and drains were systematically removed early, and patients were mobilized and started eating and drinking from the day of surgery. An opioid-sparing multimodal pain treatment was given for the first week. Discharge criteria were: pain sufficiently controlled by oral analgesics alone, patient comfortable with discharge and no untreated complications.

RESULTS

Median length of stay (LOS) for all patients was 5 days, with 2 days after laparoscopic versus 5 days following open resection (P < 0·001). Median LOS after minor open resections (fewer than 3 segments) was 5 days versus 6 days for major resections (3 or more segments) (P < 0·001). Simple right or left hemihepatectomies had a median LOS of 5 days. The readmission rate was 6·0 per cent and 30-day mortality was zero.

CONCLUSION

Fast-track principles for perioperative care were introduced successfully and are safe after liver resection. Routine discharge 2 days after laparoscopic resection and 4-5 days after open liver resection may be feasible.

[Significance of drains in surgery]

Placing drains is one the most common procedures following operations in surgical disciplines. The indication for placing a drain is, however, usually based on a traditional belief rather than being evidence-based. This paper presents an overview of the literature regarding the indications and the evidence level for placing drains following operations in visceral, vascular, thoracic and orthopeedic surgery as well as traumatology. In visceral surgery the indications for placing drains could be clarified over the past decades but in other surgical fields the level of evidence needs further investigation and clarification through future studies. The available data suggest that in most cases a prophylactic drainage can be avoided. In addition, drains may lead to increased morbidity and higher treatment costs.

Routine peritoneal drainage of the surgical bed after elective distal pancreatectomy: is it necessary?

BACKGROUND

Recent literature suggests that peritoneal drainage (PD) is not helpful after elective pancreatectomy and may be detrimental. Data specific to distal pancreatectomy (DP) have not received prior evaluation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent DP. Factors examined included postoperative morbidity and the need for therapeutic intervention.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients had DP, 30 without PD. Thirty-four patients suffered 45 complications, most were intra-abdominal in nature. Twelve, 19, and 3 patients required radiologic drainage, reoperation, or both, respectively. There was no difference between groups relative to intra-abdominal complications or the need for therapeutic intervention. Of 39 patients undergoing PD, 19 had abdominal morbidity. The drain was useful in identifying and/or treating the complication in 3 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

First, PD after DP does not confer a reduction in morbidity or the need for therapeutic intervention versus patients with no drains. Second, the presence of a drain infrequently was helpful in detecting complications. Third, a multi-institutional, randomized study is recommended.

Routine drain placement in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an expanded retrospective comparative study of 755 patients and review of the literature

Routine drain use after laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is still practiced by many bariatric surgeons. After a patient in our program experienced intestinal obstruction secondary to a drain, we reevaluated our practice and hypothesized drains would be of no benefit and potentially harmful after LRYGB. Retrospective record review of all patients undergoing LRYGB from August 2005 to August 2009 was performed. As we changed our practice in December 2006, we have two comparable groups: one with a drain placed at surgery and one without. All operations were otherwise performed in an identical fashion by three fellowship-trained university surgeons. We compared outcomes between the two groups, particularly regarding gastrojejunal (GJ) leaks. Jejunojejunal (JJ) leaks, unlikely to be captured by these drains, were not studied. A total of 755 LRYGBs were performed during the study period, the first 272 patients with routine drains and the subsequent 483 without. Demographics were statistically similar between the two groups. There were four GJ leaks in the drain group (1.47%) and three in the nondrain group (0.62%). Among the drain patients, two required operation and two were treated nonoperatively. Among the nondrain patients, two required operation and one was treated nonoperatively. The leak and reoperation rates between the groups were not statistically different (p = 0.154 and p = 0.514). Routine drains likely have no benefit after LRYGB. Clinical parameters such as tachycardia, fever, oliguria, and increasing abdominal pain should guide further investigation for and treatment of a leak.

Predictive factors for bile leakage after hepatectomy: analysis of 505 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Bile leakage is the most common complication after hepatectomy and its incidence is not declining. The aim of the present study was to identify predictive factors for bile leakage.

METHODS

Clinical data from 505 consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy without extrahepatic bile duct resection in our department between January 2006 and December 2009 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The incidence of bile leakage was found to be 6.7%. Multivariate analysis identified three independent factors that were significantly correlated with the occurrence of bile leakage: (1) repeat hepatectomy (P = 0.002; odds ratio [OR] 3.439; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.552-7.618), (2) a cut surface area ≥57.5 cm(2) (P = 0.004; OR 5.296; 95% CI 1.721-16.302), and (3) intraoperative blood loss ≥775 ml (P = 0.01; OR 2.808; 95% CI 1.280-6.160).

CONCLUSION

More meticulous management is needed to prevent bile leakage in high-risk patients.

Methods of decreasing infection to improve outcomes after liver resections

BACKGROUND

Infections cause both morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing liver resection. Various methods have been advocated to decrease the infectious complications after liver resection. We do not know if they are of any benefit to the patient or the health-care funder.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of different interventions in decreasing the infectious complications and improving the outcomes after liver resection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until August 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials that were performed to compare interventions aimed at decreasing the infectious complications after liver resection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio, or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available patient data analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials including 521 patients for this review. The sample size in the trials varied from 12 to 180 patients. All the trials were of high risks of systematic errors and of random errors. Four trials included patients who underwent liver resection only. In the remaining three trials, patients underwent combined liver resection with extrahepatic biliary resection resulting in a biliary enteric anastomosis. Four trials included only major liver resection. The remaining three trials included a mixture of major and minor liver resections. It appears that the proportion of cirrhotic patients in the trials was very low. The comparisons performed included whether antibiotics are necessary routinely during the peri-operative period of liver resection, the duration of antibiotics, the use of prebiotics and probiotics in the perioperative period, use of recombinant bactericidal-permeability increasing protein 21 (rBPI21), and the use of topical povidone iodine gel at the time of wound closure. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. There was no significant differences in mortality or severe morbidity in any of the comparisons. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of any treatment to reduce infectious complications after liver resections. Further well designed trials with low risk of systematic error and low risk of random errors are necessary.

Liver resection without pedicle clamping: feasibility and need for "salvage clamping". Looking for the right clamping policy. Analysis of 512 consecutive resections

BACKGROUND

Pedicle clamping during liver resection (LR) is debated. The purpose of this study is to validate non-clamping policy across a large series of LR and to evaluate the need for salvage clamping (SC) and its outcomes.

METHODS

Five hundred twelve consecutive LR without initial pedicle clamping performed between 2004 and 2009 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 512 LR (171 major hepatectomies), 90.2% were completed without clampage. Fifty (9.8%) required SC. Blood loss were higher in SC group (555 vs. 175 mL, p < 0.0001), while transfusion rate was not. No differences were observed in terms of mortality (0%/1.3%), morbidity (38%/38.3%), liver dysfunction (4%/3.7%), and renal dysfunction (0%/1.3%). Bile leak rate was increased in the SC group (20%/10.2%, p = 0.036). At multivariate analysis, three predictive factors of SC were identified: arterial hypertension (p = 0.007, SC rate = 13%), cirrhosis (p = 0.003, SC rate = 26%), and LR conducted along the right portal scissure (p = 0.010, SC rate = 32%). One protective factor was identified: LR confined to antero-lateral segments (Sg2-6, p = 0.001, SC rate  = 2%). Extension of LR had no impact on need for SC.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of LR can be safely performed without clamping with excellent outcomes. SC is a safe procedure and does not worsen postoperative outcomes, except for bile leak rate. Clamping policy should be tailored to the type of LR and presence of cirrhosis.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage was used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to access the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Central/CCTR) in The Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 10), including the Specialised Registers of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group; MEDLINE (via Pubmed, 1950 to October, 2010); EMBASE (1980 to October, 2010); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to October, 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy; irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain). We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

From each trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the included studies, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay and initiation of soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group).There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); and initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 day, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and lead to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was "Very Low" for mortality and re-operations, and "Low" for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.