Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection

Re-evaluation of the Necessity of Prophylactic Drainage after Liver Resection

Abdominal drainage after liver resection is considered unnecessary: however, there still exist a number of cases where drain is effective to prevent serious infectious complications. We reevaluated the necessity of drain placement after liver resection from the retrospective analysis of postoperative complications with special reference to the need for drain insertion of 140 patients undergoing hepatectomy without intraoperative abdominal drainage from 2007 through 2010. Three patients required drain reinsertion in the early postoperative period (before postoperative Day 7); all had undergone extended right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombus followed by postoperative liver failure. Risk factors for postoperative bile leakage included repeated hepatectomy, operative procedure with exposure of the major Glisson's sheath (i.e., central bisegmentectomy and anterior segmentectomy), and intraoperative bile leakage. However, because the onset of this complication was as late as postoperative Day 19.5, prophylactic drainage does not appear useful. Although not required routinely, prophylactic drainage might be useful in patients undergoing extended hepatectomy, a high-risk hepatectomy procedure exposing the major Glisson's sheath, those with positive intraoperative bile leakage, for hepatocellular carcinoma, and especially complicated with portal vein thrombus.

Does the type of pancreaticojejunostomy after Whipple alter the leak rate?

Despite the overwhelming limitations that plague the literature surrounding the optimal method of reestablishing pancreatico-enteric continuity following a Whipple operation, it is clear that all successful techniques conform to sound surgical principles. These principles include a water-tight and tension-free anastomosis, preservation of adequate blood supply for both organs involved in the anastomosis, and minimal trauma to the pancreas gland. Although surgeon experience, gland texture, and pancreatic duct size are clearly the dominate risk factors from a long list of variables associated with pancreatic leaks following pancreatoduodenectomy, these are nonmodifiable covariates. Although the plethora of current literature cannot provide a single definitive technical solution for restoring pancreatico-enteric continuity, a small number of well-designed RCTs support the use of transanastomotic external stenting for high-risk pancreatic glands and an end-to-side invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy. The truth remains that an individual surgeon's mastery of a specific anastomotic technique, in conjunction with a large personal experience, is likely to be the best predictor of a low pancreas leak rate following pancreatoduodenectomy.

Randomized clinical trial of laxatives and oral nutritional supplements within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol following liver resection

BACKGROUND

Routine laxatives may expedite gastrointestinal recovery and early tolerance of food within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. Combined with carbohydrate loading and oral nutritional supplements (ONS), it may further enhance recovery of gastrointestinal function and promote earlier overall recovery.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients undergoing liver resection were randomized in a two-by-two factorial design to receive either postoperative magnesium hydroxide as a laxative, preoperative carbohydrate loading and postoperative ONS, their combination or a control group. Patients were managed within an ERAS programme of care. The primary outcome measure was time to first passage of stool. Secondary outcome measures were gastric emptying, postoperative oral calorie intake, time to functional recovery and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients completed the trial. The laxative group had a significantly reduced time to passage of stool: median (interquartile range) 4 (3-5) versus 5 (4-6) days (P = 0.034). The ONS group showed a trend towards a shorter time to passage of stool (P = 0.076) but there was no evidence of interaction in patients randomized to the combination regimen. Median length of hospital stay was 6 (4-7) days. There were no differences in secondary outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSION

Within an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing liver resection, routine postoperative laxatives result in an earlier first passage of stool but the overall rate of recovery is unaltered.

Risk factors for major morbidity after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in 293 recent cases

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for major morbidity after hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Univariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for major morbidity were performed in 293 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC between 2001 and 2008.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-three patients (82.9%) underwent an anatomic hepatectomy, and a repeat hepatectomy was performed in 50 patients (17.1%). The prevalences of bile leakage and intraabdominal abscess were 12.9% and 9.2%, respectively. The risk factor for bile leakage was an operative time >or= 300 min and the risk factor for intraabdominal abscess was a repeat hepatectomy (odds ratios = 4.9 and 5.3, respectively). The main cause of bile leakage that made endoscopic therapy or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage necessary was a latent stricture of the biliary anatomy that had existed preoperatively, caused by previous treatments for HCC. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was the main causative bacteria of intraabdominal abscess after repeat hepatectomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our recent series revealed that prolonged operative time and repeat hepatectomy were independent risk factors for bile leakage and intraabdominal abscess, respectively, after hepatectomies for HCC. Preoperative assessment of the biliary anatomy should be considered for patients who have had previous multiple treatments for HCC, including hepatectomy, to reduce bile leakage that makes invasive treatment necessary.

Liver Resection Using a Four-Prong Radiofrequency Transection Device

Multiple techniques are available for division of hepatic parenchyma. This is the largest United States report examining the use of the Habib 4X tissue coagulator (AngioDynamics, Queensbury, NY). The objective was to collect standard parameters associated with successful, benchmarked liver surgery outcomes using this new device, and in particular, examine the risk of margin failure. Ninety-four consecutive operations using the Habib 4X were analyzed with special attention to local failure at resection margin, blood loss/transfusion, and operative times. An institutional review board approved protocol allowed collection and analysis of demographic information and outcomes for intraoperative, perioperative, and long term follow-up. Eighteen patients had biopsy only. Thirty-one had lobar resections and 46 had wedge or segmental resections. There were 30 primary hepatic and 46 metastatic tumor diagnoses. There were a total of 33 (43%) recurrences with a mean time to recurrence of 212 days (range 15-974). Of the 27 intrahepatic recurrences, four (15%) were at the margin. The OR time ranged from 115 to 642 minutes (average 283 min). The average recorded blood loss was 427 mL; 11 patients were transfused (average 0.43 units). The Habib 4X is a safe tool to use when evaluating the parameters of blood loss, transfusion, and margin recurrence.

Outcome--more than just operative mortality

Historical reviews of outcome following major operations for cancer have focused on the readily measurable, operative mortality. The interrelationship of surgeon and institutional volume to improved perioperative outcome has been confirmed. More current studies now relate long term cancer survival to other issues of specialization, volume, payor and institution. The challenge is to determine what volume thresholds are sufficient for acceptable outcomes.

Techniques for liver parenchymal transection in liver resection

BACKGROUND

Blood loss during elective liver resection is one of the main factors affecting the surgical outcome. Different parenchymal transection techniques have been suggested to decrease blood loss.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of the different techniques of parenchymal transection during liver resections.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (March 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing different methods of parenchymal dissection irrespective of the method of vascular occlusion or any other measures used for lowering blood loss.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors identified the trials and extracted the data on the population characteristics, bias risk, mortality, morbidity, blood loss, transection speed, and hospital stay independently of each other. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on 'interntion-to-treat analysis' or 'available case analysis' using RevMan 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials randomising 556 patients. The comparisons include CUSA (cavitron ultrasound surgical aspirator) versus clamp-crush (two trials); radiofrequency dissecting sealer (RFDS) versus clamp-crush (two trials); sharp dissection versus clamp-crush technique (one trial); and hydrojet versus CUSA (one trial). One trial compared CUSA, RFDS, hydrojet, and clamp-crush technique. The infective complications and transection blood loss were greater in the RFDS than clamp-crush. There was no difference in the blood transfusion requirements, intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay, or hospital stay in this comparison. There was no significant differences in the mortality, morbidity, markers of liver parenchymal injury or liver dysfunction, ITU, or hospital stay in the other comparisons. The blood transfusion requirements were lower in the clamp-crush technique than CUSA and hydrojet. There was no difference in the transfusion requirements of clamp-crush technique and sharp dissection. Clamp-crush technique is quicker than CUSA, hydrojet, and RFDS. The transection speed of sharp dissection and clamp-crush technique was not compared. There was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the operating time between sharp dissection and clamp-crush techniques. Clamp-crush technique is two to six times cheaper than the other methods depending upon the number of surgeries performed each year.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clamp-crush technique is advocated as the method of choice in liver parenchymal transection because it avoids special equipment, whereas the newer methods do not seem to offer any benefit in decreasing the morbidity or transfusion requirement.

Abdominal drains in liver transplantation: useful tool or useless dogma? A matched case-control study

On the basis of the growing evidence from randomized trials that routine prophylactic drainage is unnecessary in liver surgery or even harmful in chronic liver disease, we challenged the concept of prophylactic drainage in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Since September 2006, we omitted drains in every patient who underwent OLT, regardless of the procedure. Thirty-five cadaveric OLTs were performed during a 12-month period. These patients were matched 1:2 with 70 patients who had prophylactic drainage after OLT according to donor/recipient age, recipient gender, recipient body mass index, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Endpoints were postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay. Complications were graded according to a therapy-oriented classification (grades I-V). Both groups (no drainage, n = 35; drainage, n = 70) were comparable in terms of median donor age (47.5 versus 51.0 years), recipient age (50.6 versus 52.0 years), MELD score (18 versus 14), and body mass index (25.3 versus 26 kg/m(2)). Because of the increasing shortage of organs, more marginal grafts were used in the recent period (ie, no-drainage group): 49% (17/35) versus 27% (19/70; P = 0.04). Major complications were not different between groups: grade 3a (endoscopic/radiological intervention) in 20% (7/35) versus 16% (11/70; not significant), grade 3b (surgical intervention) in 23% (8/35) versus 17% (12/70; not significant), grade 4a (ICU therapy, intermittent hemodialysis) in 34% (12/35) versus 21% (15/70; not significant), grade 4b (multiorgan failure) in 14% (5/35) versus 10% (7/70; not significant), and grade 5 (death) in 6% (2/35) versus 7% (5/70; not significant). This matched case study challenges the dogma of prophylactic drainage after OLT. A no-drain strategy provided no disadvantages despite increased use of extended criteria donors in the no-drainage group. Prophylactic drainage appears unnecessary on a routine basis.

Initial experience with a multimodal enhanced recovery programme in patients undergoing liver resection

Background

Accelerated recovery from surgery has been achieved when patients are managed within a multimodal Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol. This study evaluated the benefit of an ERAS programme for patients undergoing liver resection.

Methods

The ERAS protocol of epidural analgesia, early oral intake and early mobilization was studied prospectively in a consecutive series of 61 patients. Outcomes were compared with those in a consecutive series of 100 patients who underwent liver resection before the start of the study. Endpoints were postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative resumption of oral intake, readmissions, morbidity and mortality.

Results

Fifty-six patients (92 per cent) in the ERAS group tolerated fluids within 4 h of surgery and a normal diet on day 1 after surgery. Median hospital stay, including readmissions, was 6·0 days compared with 8·0 days in the control group (P < 0·001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission (13 and 10·0 per cent respectively), morbidity (41 and 31·0 per cent) and mortality (0 and 2·0 per cent) between ERAS and control groups.

Conclusion

The ERAS fast-track protocol is safe and effective for patients undergoing liver resection. It allows early oral intake, promotes faster postoperative recovery and reduces hospital stay.

Right hemihepatectomy

A right hemihepatectomy is frequently required for surgical removal of colorectal liver metastases. Today, this procedure can be performed quite safely provided the remaining liver is free from significant disease including steatohepatitis due to prolonged cytostatic treatment. Standard surgical techniques for liver resection are described in surgical textbooks. However, each center has developed its own modifications of important details. In this paper, we describe our technique to resect the right liver lobe using conventional surgical techniques as well as a vascular stapler and an ultrasonic dissector. This technique has proven to be quite safe, and blood loss is most often not significant despite we do not routinely apply the Pringle's manoeuvre during the division of the liver parenchyma.

Liver surgery in the presence of cirrhosis or steatosis: Is morbidity increased?

Background data

The prevalence of steatosis and hepatitis-related liver cirrhosis is dramatically increasing together worldwide. Cirrhosis and, more recently, steatosis are recognized as a clinically important feature that influences patient morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection when compared with patients with healthy liver.

Objective

To review present knowledge regarding how the presence of cirrhosis or steatosis can influence postoperative outcome after liver resection.

Methods

A critical review of the English literature was performed to provide data concerning postoperative outcome of patients presenting injured livers who required hepatectomy.

Results

In clinical studies, the presence of steatosis impaired postoperative outcome regardless the severity and quality of the hepatic fat. A great improvement in postoperative outcome has been achieved using modern and multidisciplinary preoperative workup in cirrhotic patients. Due to the lack of a proper classification for morbidity and a clear definition of hepatic failure in the literature, the comparison between different studies is very limited. Although, many surgical strategies have been developed to protect injured liver surgery, no one have gained worldwide acceptance.

Conclusion

Surgeons should take the presence of underlying injured livers into account when planning the extent and type of hepatic surgery. Preoperative and perioperative interventions should be considered to minimize the additional damage. Further randomized trials should focus on the evaluation of novel preoperative strategies to minimize risk in these patients. Each referral liver center should have the commitment to report all deaths related to postoperative hepatic failure and to use a common classification system for postoperative complications.

Is prophylactic placement of drains necessary after subtotal gastrectomy?

AIM: To determine the evidence-based values of prophylactic drainage in gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS: One hundred and eight patients, who underwent subtotal gastrectomy with D1 or D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer between January 2001 and December 2005, were divided into drain group or no-drain group. Surgical outcome and post-operative complications within four weeks were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the drain group and no-drain group in terms of operating time (171 ± 42 min vs 156 ± 39 min), number of post-operative days until passage of flatus (3.7 ± 0.5 d vs 3.5 ± 1.0 d), number of post-operative days until initiation of soft diet (4.9 ± 0.7 d vs 4.8 ± 0.8 d), length of post-operative hospital stay (9.3 ± 2.2 d vs 8.4 ± 2.4 d), mortality rate (5.4% vs 3.8%), and overall post-operative complication rate (21.4% vs 19.2%).

CONCLUSION: Prophylactic drainage placement is not necessary after subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer since it does not offer additional benefits for the patients.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated liver resection

BACKGROUND

The main reasons for inserting a drain after elective liver resections are (i) prevention of sub-phrenic or sub-hepatic fluid collection; (ii) identification and monitoring of post-operative bleeding; (iii) identification and drainage of any bile leak; and (iv) prevent the accumulation of ascitic fluid in cirrhotics. However, there are reports that drain use increases the complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in elective liver resections.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in adults undergoing elective liver resection. We also included randomised trials comparing different types of drain in adults undergoing elective liver resection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, morbidity, conversion rate, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using the Cochrane Collaboration statistical software RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (based on intention-to-treat analysis) by combining the trial data sets using fixed-effect model or random-effects model, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain versus no drain: We included five trials with 465 patients randomised: 234 to the drain group and 231 to the no drain group. Three of the five trials were of high methodological quality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes (mortality, intra-abdominal collections requiring re-operation, infected intra-abdominal collections, wound infection, ascitic leak, and hospital stay, when the random-effects model was adopted. Open drain versus closed drain: One randomised clinical trial of low methodological quality comparing open with closed drainage (186 patients) showed a lower incidence of infected intra-abdominal collections, chest complications, and hospital stay in the closed drain group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support routine drain use after uncomplicated liver resections.

Current management of biliary leaks

Biliary leak is a troubling complication that arises after a broad range of interventions on the gallbladder, bile ducts, and liver as well as after liver trauma. Fortunately, most biliary leaks are minor. Advances in imaging and minimally invasive interventional techniques have facilitated nonoperative treatment in most cases. The specific clinical scenario dictates diagnosis and treatment of a biliary leak. Prompt diagnosis and treatment lead to optimal clinical outcomes.

A Pelvic Drain Can Often Be Avoided After Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy—An Update in 552 Cases

OBJECTIVES

The routine placement of a pelvic drain following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) may not be required. We describe our experience in 552 consecutive RRPs to emphasise the safety of this approach and explain our rationale for avoiding a drain when possible.

METHODS

RRP was performed in 552 consecutive patients with clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate between January 2002 and June 2005. Clinical and pathologic information was documented for each patient. After the prostate was removed and the anastomotic sutures tied, the bladder was gently filled with approximately 50 ml of saline through the urethral catheter. If there was no leak, a drain was not placed.

RESULTS

A drain was not placed in 419 (76%) of the 552 patients. We compared the postoperative complication rates in those with (D+) and without (D-) a drain. There were 27 (5%) immediate postoperative complications and no significant difference between the two groups (D+, 6%; D-, 5%; p=0.629): three (1%) patients who did not have a drain had a urinoma, one (1%) who had a drain had a lymphocele, and two (2%) who had a drain had a small pelvic haematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

If the bladder neck is preserved or meticulously reconstructed, there may be little extravasation and, thus, routine drainage is unnecessary. Our 4-year experience indicates that morbidity is not increased by omitting a drain from the pelvic cavity after RRP in properly selected cases.

Hepatobiliary Surgery: Lessons Learned from Live Donor Hepatectomy

The liver is unique in the rapid tissue regeneration occurs after resection or injury, and affords the surgeon the opportunity to safely remove up to 60% to 70% of the liver volume for treatment of cancer or for use as a live donor graft for transplantation. The complex development of the liver and biliary system in utero results in multiple and complicated anatomic variations. The hepatobiliary surgeon of today must be able to integrate a broadening array of radiologic and liver resection techniques that may improve patient safety and surgical outcome. Equally important is the ability to quickly recognize postoperative complications so that prompt intervention can be instituted. Successful outcome requires a balance between sound judgement, technical acumen, and attention to detail. Herein, we provide lessons learned from live donor liver transplantation that are directly applicable to any patient undergoing major hepatic resection.

High-pressure gradients generated by closed-suction surgical drainage systems

BACKGROUND

Closed suction drains remain in widespread use in surgical practice. There have been reports of complications associated with their use. We sought to characterize the pressure-generating capacities of three commonly used closed suction drainage systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three commonly used closed suction surgical drainage systems were studied: Davol Reliavac 400 Evacuator, Jackson-Pratt Closed Wound Suction Drainage System, and Snyder Hemovac 400. Each drainage system was connected to a pneumatic pressure transducer, and pressure measurements were made. Measurements were made with the drain reservoirs at varying degrees of fullness. Measurements were also made while "stripping" the drains.

RESULTS

In all three systems, maximal negative pressures (-71 to -175 mm Hg) were generated with the reservoirs empty of fluid. Pressure generation by all drains decreased as the volume of fluid in the reservoir increased. In all cases, drain "stripping" was associated with a transient elevation in drain pressure (p<0.05). In two out of three drains, stripping led to a significant residual increase in static drain pressure.

CONCLUSION

Closed suction drains are capable of generating high pressures that may contribute to some complications associated with their use. Closed suction drainage systems differ with regard to their generation of negative pressure.

Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection: prospective study for 104 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was designed to determine whether the period of drain insertion influences the incidence of postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND DATA

The significance of prophylactic drains after pancreatic head resection is still controversial. No report discusses the association of the period of drain insertion and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A total of 104 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic head resection were enrolled in this study. To assess the value of prophylactic drains, we prospectively assigned the patients into 2 groups: group I underwent resection from January 2000 to January 2002 (n = 52, drain to be removed on postoperative day 8); group II underwent resection from February 2002 to December 2004 (n = 52, drain to be removed on postoperative day 4). Postoperative complications in the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

The rate of pancreatic fistula was significantly lower in group II (3.6%) than in group I (23%) (P = 0.0038). The rate of intra-abdominal infections, including intra-abdominal abscess and infected intra-abdominal collections, was significantly reduced in group II (7.7%) compared with group I (38%) (P = 0.0003). Eighteen of 52 (34.6%) patients in group I had an inserted drain beyond 8 days, whereas only 2 of 52 (3.7%) patients in group II had an inserted drain beyond 4 days (P = 0.0002). Cultures of drainage fluid were positive in 16 of 52 (30.8%) patients in group I, and in 2 of 52 (3.7%) patients in group II (P = 0.0002). Intraoperative bleeding (> 1500 mL), operative time (> 420 minutes, and the period of drain insertion were significant risk factors for intra-abdominal infections (P = 0.043, 0.025, 0.0003, respectively). The period of drain insertion was the only independent risk factor for intra-abdominal infections by multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 6.7).

CONCLUSION

Drain removal on postoperative day 4 was shown to be an independent factor in reducing the incidence of complications with pancreatic head resection, including intra-abdominal infections.

"Technological" approach versus clamp crushing technique for hepatic parenchymal transection: a comparative study

We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of combining two different electronic devices, the ultrasonic dissector (UD) and the harmonic scalpel (HS), during hepatic resection. One hundred consecutive patients underwent liver resection using UD plus HS between January and December 2004 (UD + HS group). The ultrasonic dissector was used to fracture liver parenchyma and the uncovered vessel was sealed using the HS. Surgical outcomes were compared with 100 consecutive patients who underwent liver resection using the clamp crushing method. Operative variables, postoperative liver function, hospital stay, and type and number of complications were compared. The two groups were equivalent in term of demographic and pathologic variables. The UD + HS group had a decreased blood loss (500 ml versus 700 ml, P = 0.005), number of patients transfused (22 versus 39, P = 0.009), tumor exposure at the transection surface (4 versus 12, P = 00.012), and hospital stay (7 versus 8.5 days, P = 0.020). Postoperative major complications, in particular, fluid collection and biliary fistula, were significantly less frequent in the UD + HS group (2 versus 9, P = 0.030). A longer operative time was recorded in the UD + HS group (385 versus 330 minutes, P = 0.001). The combined use of UD with HS allows liver resection to be safely performed, with the advantage of reducing blood losses and surgery-related complications. The only major disadvantage may be a longer transection time.

Randomized clinical trial of the effects of abdominal drainage after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method

BACKGROUND

Abdominal drainage is a standard procedure after hepatectomy, but this practice has been challenged recently.

METHODS

Between September 2004 and March 2005, 120 consecutive patients who had undergone hepatic resection by the same surgical team were randomly allocated into drainage and no drainage groups (60 in each group). Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, presence of cirrhosis, resection-related factors and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable in terms of demographics, indications for surgery, preoperative liver function test results, presence of cirrhosis, extent of hepatectomy, intraoperative blood loss and requirement for blood transfusion. Symptomatic subphrenic collection and pleural effusion occurred in four patients (7 per cent) who had abdominal drainage and three (5 per cent) who did not. Local wound complications occurred in 17 (28 per cent) and two (3 per cent) patients respectively (P < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was similar in the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of cirrhosis and abdominal drainage were independently related to the development of postoperative wound complications.

CONCLUSION

Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method.

Zugangswege zur Bauchhöhle und Möglichkeiten der Drainage

Appropriate access to the abdominal cavity is the first and crucial step for successful abdominal surgical intervention. In planning the incision, several variables have to be considered, such as anatomy of the abdominal wall, localization of the target organ, and individual conditions (previous incisions, minimal access surgery, etc). Medial laparotomy is the preferred incision for emergency cases and ill-defined pathologies, allowing access and hence exploration to all quadrants. Transverse laparotomies give superior access to the dorsal and right aspects of the liver and cause less pain in patients unfit for regional anesthetic procedures. Draining of the abdominal cavity is used after various resective and reconstructive procedures, but there is little evidence for its use in a number of operations such as gastric, hepatic, and colorectal resections. Advantages and disadvantages of different abdominal wall incisions and drainages are discussed.

Two-surgeon technique for hepatic parenchymal transection of the noncirrhotic liver using saline-linked cautery and ultrasonic dissection

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze our experience with saline-linked cautery in hepatic surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Safe and efficient hepatic parenchymal transection is predicated on the ability to simultaneously address 2 tasks: parenchymal dissection and hemostasis. To date, no single instrument has been designed that addresses both of these tasks. Saline-linked cautery is now widely used in liver surgery and is reported to decrease blood loss during liver transection, but data on its exact benefits are lacking.

METHODS

From a single institution, prospective liver surgery database, we identified 32 consecutive patients with noncirrhotic livers who underwent resection for primary or metastatic disease using a 2-surgeon technique with saline-linked cautery and ultrasonic dissection (SLC+UD) from December 2002 to January 2004. From the same database, we identified a contemporary and matched set of 32 patients who underwent liver resection with similar indications using ultrasonic dissection alone (UD alone). Operative and anesthetic variables were retrospectively analyzed to identify differences between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were equivalent in terms of age, gender, tumor histology, tumor number, and tumor size. The UD+SLC group had a decreased duration of inflow occlusion (20 minutes versus 30 minutes, P = 0.01), blood loss (150 mL versus 250 mL, P = 0.034), and operative time (187 minutes versus 211 minutes, P = 0.027). Postoperative liver function and complication rates were similar in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-surgeon technique for liver parenchymal transection using SLC and UD in noncirrhotic livers is safe and may provide advantages over other techniques.

Chirurgische Resektion kolorektaler Lebermetastasen

Liver resection for colorectal metastases can be performed with curative intent in about 15-20% of patients. From a surgical point of view, achieving a radical (R0) resection is of paramount importance. Perioperative mortality is mainly linked to the extent of the resection (class I/II). Results of ischemic or drug-induced preconditioning have been ambiguous, and their clinical use is at most questionable. Five-year survival following primary and repeated liver resection is consistently reported at 30-40%. The options for improving prognosis by purely technical means appear limited. Instead, future strategies must aim at the conversion of primarily irresectable and potentially resectable liver metastases into resectable tumors. This could be achieved preoperatively via portal vein embolisation and neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgically via sequential resection or a combination of surgery with local ablative therapy. All suggested modalities for primarily inoperable tumors should be systematically evaluated in clinical trials.

Safety of donor right hepatectomy without abdominal drainage: a prospective evaluation in 100 consecutive liver donors

Although the role of routine abdominal drainage after liver resection for tumors has been questioned, abdominal drainage after donor right hepatectomy for live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been a routine practice in most transplant centers. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety of the procedure without abdominal drainage. A prospective study was performed on 100 consecutive liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT from July 2000 to September 2003. Biliary anatomy was carefully studied with intraoperative cholangiography using fluoroscopy. The middle hepatic vein was included in the graft in all except 1 patient. Parenchymal transection was performed using an ultrasonic dissector. The right hepatic duct was transected at the hilum and the stump was closed with 6-O polydioxanone continuous suture. Absence of bile leakage was confirmed with methylene blue solution instilled through the cystic duct stump. The abdomen was closed after careful hemostasis without drainage in all donors. The median age of the donors was 36 years (range 18-56 years). Median operative blood loss and operating time were 350 mL (range 42-1,400 mL) and 7.5 hours (range 5.2-10.7 hours), respectively. None of the donors required any blood or blood product transfusion. There was no operative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-30 days). Postoperative morbidity occurred in 19 patients (19%), most of which were minor complications. No donor experienced bile leakage, intraabdominal bleeding, or collection. None required surgical, radiologic, or endoscopic intervention for postoperative complications, except for 1 donor who developed late biliary stricture that required endoscopic dilatation. All donors were well with a median follow-up of 32 months (range 11-50 months). In conclusion, with detailed study of the biliary anatomy and meticulous surgical technique, donor right hepatectomy can be safely performed without abdominal drainage. Abdominal drainage is not a mandatory procedure after donor hepatectomy in LDLT.

Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To determine the evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery.

METHODS

An electronic search of the Medline database from 1966 to 2004 was performed to identify articles comparing prophylactic drainage with no drainage in GI surgery. The studies were reviewed and classified according to their quality of evidence using the grading system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found for hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery, none for upper GI tract, and 13 for lower GI tract surgery. If sufficient RCTs were identified, we performed a meta-analysis to characterize the drain effect using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

There is evidence of level 1a that drains do not reduce complications after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis. Drains were even harmful after hepatic resection in chronic liver disease and appendectomy. In the absence of RCTs, there is a consensus (evidence level 5) about the necessity of prophylactic drainage after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy due to the potential fatal outcome in case of anastomotic and gastric leakage.

CONCLUSION

Many GI operations can be performed safely without prophylactic drainage. Drains should be omitted after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis (recommendation grade A), whereas prophylactic drainage remains indicated after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy (recommendation grade D). For many other GI procedures, especially involving the upper GI tract, there is a further demand for well-designed RCTs to clarify the value of prophylactic drainage.

Abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether abdominal drainage is beneficial after elective hepatic resection in patients with underlying chronic liver diseases.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Traditionally, in patients with chronic liver diseases, an abdominal drainage catheter is routinely inserted after hepatic resection to drain ascitic fluid and to detect postoperative hemorrhage and bile leakage. However, the benefits of this surgical practice have not been evaluated prospectively.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1999 and March 2002, 104 patients who had underlying chronic liver diseases were prospectively randomized to have either closed suction abdominal drainage (drainage group, n = 52) or no drainage (nondrainage group, n = 52) after elective hepatic resection. The operative outcomes of the 2 groups of patients were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven (55%) patients had major hepatic resection with resection of 3 Coiunaud's segments or more. Sixty-nine (66%) patients had liver cirrhosis and 35 (34%) had chronic hepatitis. Demographic, surgical, and pathologic details were similar between both groups. The primary indication for hepatic resection was hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 100, 96%). There was no difference in hospital mortality between the 2 groups of patients (drainage group, 6% vs. nondrainage group, 2%; P = 0.618). However, there was a significantly higher overall operative morbidity in the drainage group (73% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). This was related to a significantly higher incidence of wound complications in the drainage group compared with the nondrainage group (62% vs. 21%, P < 0.001). In addition, a trend toward a higher incidence of septic complications in the drainage group was observed (33% vs. 17%, P = 0.07). The mean (+/- standard error of mean) postoperative hospital stay of the drainage group was 19.0 +/- 2.2 days, which was significantly longer than that of the nondrainage group (12.5 +/- 1.1 days, P = 0.005). With a median follow-up of 15 months, none of the 51 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the drainage group developed metastasis at the drain sites. On multivariate analysis, abdominal drainage, underlying liver cirrhosis, major hepatic resection, and intraoperative blood loss of >1.5L were independent and significant factors associated with postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Routine abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases.

Total vascular exclusion technique for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To improve the low resection rate, poor prognosis and to control the massive hemorrhage during operation, total vascular exclusion (TVE) technique was used in hepatectomies of advanced and complicated hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs).

METHODS: Five hundred and thirty patients with HCCs were admitted in our hospital. They were divided into TVE technique group (group A: n = 78), Pringle maneuver method group (group B: n = 176) and unresectable group (group C: n = 276). The clinical, operative, pathological parameters and outcome of the patients were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS: Group A had a significantly higher resection rate than group B (accounting for 47.92% and 33.21% respectively). There was no significant difference in blood loss, blood transfusion and perioperative mortality between groups A and B. Both groups had the similar median disease free survival time (14.6 vs 16.3 months) and 1 year survival rate (92.9% vs 95.5%). The TVE group had a medial survival time of 40.5 months and its 5-year survival rate was 34.6%.

CONCLUSION: As compared with Pringle maneuver method, the total vascular exclusion is a safe and effective technique to increase the total resection rate of advanced and complicated HCCs.

An audit of results of a no-drainage practice policy after hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

It was hypothesized that routine operative drainage is unnecessary for elective hepatic resection.

METHODS

A review was made of the clinical records of patients undergoing liver resection at a tertiary referral hepatobiliary surgery center since the conclusion in April of 1994 of our previous randomized drainage trial. The main outcome measures were operative drainage versus no operative drainage assessed for possible association with diagnoses, extent of hepatectomy, hospital course, and postoperative radiologic percutaneous drainage procedures.

RESULTS

Of 1,165 patients, 184 were operatively drained with closed drains according to specific practice criteria and 981 were not subject to operative drainage. Patients who were not operatively drained had length of stay (10.1 days), mortality (2%), and complication rate (34%) comparable with the nondrained patients in the previous randomized trial. Ten percent of these patients required postoperative percutaneous drainage. Patients who were operatively drained were a group who were at higher risk for biliary leakage or infections and consequently had a significantly longer hospital stay, greater mortality, higher complication rate, and required a greater number of percutaneous abdominal drainages.

CONCLUSIONS

The 84% of patients not operatively drained had no greater adverse outcome. After hepatic resection, routine drainage of the abdomen is unnecessary.

Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nature of changes in the field of hepatic resectional surgery and their impact on perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Demographics, extent of resection, concomitant major procedures, operative and transfusion data, complications, and hospital stay were analyzed for 1,803 consecutive patients undergoing hepatic resection from December 1991 to September 2001 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Factors associated with morbidity and mortality and trends in operative and perioperative variables over the period of study were analyzed.

RESULTS

Malignant disease was the most common diagnosis (1,642 patients, 91%); of these cases, metastatic colorectal cancer accounted for 62% (n = 1,021). Three hundred seventy-five resections (21%) were performed for primary hepatic or biliary cancers and 161 (9%) for benign disease. Anatomical resections were performed in 1,568 patients (87%) and included 544 extended hepatectomies, 483 hepatectomies, and 526 segmental resections. Sixty-two percent of patients had three or more segments resected, 42% had bilobar resections, and 37% had concomitant additional major procedures. The median blood loss was 600 mL and 49% of patients were transfused at any time during the index admission. Median hospital stay was 8 days, morbidity was 45%, and operative mortality was 3.1%. Over the study period, there was a significant increase in the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections and a decrease in the number of hepatic segments resected. In parallel with this, there was a significant decline in blood loss, the use of blood products, and hospital stay. Despite an increase in concomitant major procedures, operative mortality decreased from approximately 4% in the first 5 years of the study to 1.3% in the last 2 years, with 0 operative deaths in the last 184 consecutive cases. On multivariate analysis, the number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only independent predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections has increased significantly. The number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality, and reductions in both are largely responsible for the decrease in perioperative mortality, which has occurred despite an increase in concomitant major procedures.

Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nature of changes in the field of hepatic resectional surgery and their impact on perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Demographics, extent of resection, concomitant major procedures, operative and transfusion data, complications, and hospital stay were analyzed for 1,803 consecutive patients undergoing hepatic resection from December 1991 to September 2001 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Factors associated with morbidity and mortality and trends in operative and perioperative variables over the period of study were analyzed.

RESULTS

Malignant disease was the most common diagnosis (1,642 patients, 91%); of these cases, metastatic colorectal cancer accounted for 62% (n = 1,021). Three hundred seventy-five resections (21%) were performed for primary hepatic or biliary cancers and 161 (9%) for benign disease. Anatomical resections were performed in 1,568 patients (87%) and included 544 extended hepatectomies, 483 hepatectomies, and 526 segmental resections. Sixty-two percent of patients had three or more segments resected, 42% had bilobar resections, and 37% had concomitant additional major procedures. The median blood loss was 600 mL and 49% of patients were transfused at any time during the index admission. Median hospital stay was 8 days, morbidity was 45%, and operative mortality was 3.1%. Over the study period, there was a significant increase in the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections and a decrease in the number of hepatic segments resected. In parallel with this, there was a significant decline in blood loss, the use of blood products, and hospital stay. Despite an increase in concomitant major procedures, operative mortality decreased from approximately 4% in the first 5 years of the study to 1.3% in the last 2 years, with 0 operative deaths in the last 184 consecutive cases. On multivariate analysis, the number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only independent predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections has increased significantly. The number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality, and reductions in both are largely responsible for the decrease in perioperative mortality, which has occurred despite an increase in concomitant major procedures.

Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nature of changes in the field of hepatic resectional surgery and their impact on perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Demographics, extent of resection, concomitant major procedures, operative and transfusion data, complications, and hospital stay were analyzed for 1,803 consecutive patients undergoing hepatic resection from December 1991 to September 2001 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Factors associated with morbidity and mortality and trends in operative and perioperative variables over the period of study were analyzed.

RESULTS

Malignant disease was the most common diagnosis (1,642 patients, 91%); of these cases, metastatic colorectal cancer accounted for 62% (n = 1,021). Three hundred seventy-five resections (21%) were performed for primary hepatic or biliary cancers and 161 (9%) for benign disease. Anatomical resections were performed in 1,568 patients (87%) and included 544 extended hepatectomies, 483 hepatectomies, and 526 segmental resections. Sixty-two percent of patients had three or more segments resected, 42% had bilobar resections, and 37% had concomitant additional major procedures. The median blood loss was 600 mL and 49% of patients were transfused at any time during the index admission. Median hospital stay was 8 days, morbidity was 45%, and operative mortality was 3.1%. Over the study period, there was a significant increase in the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections and a decrease in the number of hepatic segments resected. In parallel with this, there was a significant decline in blood loss, the use of blood products, and hospital stay. Despite an increase in concomitant major procedures, operative mortality decreased from approximately 4% in the first 5 years of the study to 1.3% in the last 2 years, with 0 operative deaths in the last 184 consecutive cases. On multivariate analysis, the number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only independent predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections has increased significantly. The number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality, and reductions in both are largely responsible for the decrease in perioperative mortality, which has occurred despite an increase in concomitant major procedures.

Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nature of changes in the field of hepatic resectional surgery and their impact on perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Demographics, extent of resection, concomitant major procedures, operative and transfusion data, complications, and hospital stay were analyzed for 1,803 consecutive patients undergoing hepatic resection from December 1991 to September 2001 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Factors associated with morbidity and mortality and trends in operative and perioperative variables over the period of study were analyzed.

RESULTS

Malignant disease was the most common diagnosis (1,642 patients, 91%); of these cases, metastatic colorectal cancer accounted for 62% (n = 1,021). Three hundred seventy-five resections (21%) were performed for primary hepatic or biliary cancers and 161 (9%) for benign disease. Anatomical resections were performed in 1,568 patients (87%) and included 544 extended hepatectomies, 483 hepatectomies, and 526 segmental resections. Sixty-two percent of patients had three or more segments resected, 42% had bilobar resections, and 37% had concomitant additional major procedures. The median blood loss was 600 mL and 49% of patients were transfused at any time during the index admission. Median hospital stay was 8 days, morbidity was 45%, and operative mortality was 3.1%. Over the study period, there was a significant increase in the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections and a decrease in the number of hepatic segments resected. In parallel with this, there was a significant decline in blood loss, the use of blood products, and hospital stay. Despite an increase in concomitant major procedures, operative mortality decreased from approximately 4% in the first 5 years of the study to 1.3% in the last 2 years, with 0 operative deaths in the last 184 consecutive cases. On multivariate analysis, the number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only independent predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, the use of parenchymal-sparing segmental resections has increased significantly. The number of hepatic segments resected and operative blood loss were the only predictors of both perioperative morbidity and mortality, and reductions in both are largely responsible for the decrease in perioperative mortality, which has occurred despite an increase in concomitant major procedures.

Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify 10 critical elements of accurate and comprehensive reports of surgical complications.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Despite a venerable tradition of weekly morbidity and mortality conferences, inconsistent complication reporting is common in the surgical literature.

METHODS

An analysis of articles reporting short-term outcomes after pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and hepatectomy was performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 1975 to 2001 and retrospective series of more than 100 patients published from 1990 to 2001 were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 119 articles reporting outcomes in 22,530 patients were analyzed. This included 42 RCTs and 77 retrospective series. Of the 10 criteria developed, no articles met all criteria; 2% met 9 criteria, 38% 7 or 8, 34% 5 or 6, 40% 3 or 4, and 12% 1 or 2. Outpatient information (22% of articles), definitions of complications provided (34% of articles), severity grade used (20% of articles), and risk factors included in analysis (29% of articles) were the most commonly unmet quality reporting criteria. Type of study (RCT vs. retrospective), site of institution (U.S. vs. non-U.S.) and journal (U.S. vs. non-U.S.) did not influence the quality of complication reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term surgical outcomes are routinely included in the data reported in the surgical literature. This is often used to show improvements over time or to assess the impact of therapeutic changes on patient outcome. The inconsistency of reporting and the lack of accepted principles of accrual, display, and analysis of complication data argue strongly for the creation and generalized use of standards for reporting this information.

The uses and abuses of drains in abdominal surgery

Controversy surrounds the indications for and effectiveness of the abdominal drain. There are a variety of factors which mitigate against formulating rigid guidelines for the indications of drains, but surgeons should understand the benefits and applications of drainage and the tissue responses to the constituent materials. Drains are not a substitute for meticulous surgical technique.

Randomized clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary cancer

Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains among the most common malignancies in the world. Many of the advances in the treatment of this disease have come from combinations of early detection in endemic areas, improved radiologic evaluation in defining extent of disease, an increased use of nonsurgical treatment and improvements in surgical technique.

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

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that routine intraperitoneal drainage is not required after pancreatic resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The use of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains has been considered routine after pancreatic resection. Recent studies have suggested that for other major upper abdominal resections, routine postoperative drainage is not required and may be associated with an increased complication rate.

METHODS

After informed consent, eligible patients with peripancreatic tumors were randomized during surgery either to have no drains placed or to have closed suction drainage placed in a standardized fashion after pancreatic resection. Clinical, pathologic, and surgical details were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-nine patients were enrolled in the study, 90 women and 89 men. Mean age was 65.4 years (range 23-87). The pancreas was the tumor site in 142 (79%) patients, with the ampulla (n = 24), duodenum (n = 10), and distal common bile duct (n = 3) accounting for the remainder. A pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 139 patients and a distal pancreatectomy in 40 cases. Eighty-eight patients were randomized to have drains placed. Demographic, surgical, and pathologic details were similar between both groups. The overall 30-day death rate was 2% (n = 4). A postoperative complication occurred during the initial admission in 107 patients (59%). There was no significant difference in the number or type of complications between groups. In the drained group, 11 patients (12.5%) developed a pancreatic fistula. Patients with a drain were more likely to develop a significant intraabdominal abscess, collection, or fistula.

CONCLUSION

This randomized prospective clinical trial failed to show a reduction in the number of deaths or complications with the addition of surgical intraperitoneal closed suction drainage after pancreatic resection. The data suggest that the presence of drains failed to reduce either the need for interventional radiologic drainage or surgical exploration for intraabdominal sepsis. Based on these results, closed suction drainage should not be considered mandatory or standard after pancreatic resection.