Wound drainage for caesarean section

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included two trials involving 316 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 156) and the no drainage group (N = 160) after pancreatic surgery. Both trials were at high risk of bias. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (drains 1.3%; no drains 3.8%; RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 3.94; two studies; very low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; very low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (8.3% versus 14.4%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two studies), wound infection (10.9% versus 11.9%; RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.86; two studies), morbidity (67.3% versus 65.0%; RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; two studies), length of hospital stay (MD -0.97 days; 95% CI -1.41 to -0.53; two studies), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (6.3% versus 6.4%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.32; two studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Type of drainThere were no randomized controlled trials comparing one type of drain versus another. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in the mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days; 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that early removal may be superior to late removal for patients with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to February 2014), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to February 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials involving 453 patients with complicated appendicitis who were randomised to the drainage group (n = 228) and the no drainage group (n = 225) after emergency open appendectomies. All of the trials were at a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection. The hospital stay was longer in the drainage group than in the no drainage group (MD 2.04 days; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.62) (34.4% increase of an 'average' hospital stay).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Abdominal drainage after an emergency open appendectomy may be associated with delayed hospital discharge for patients with complicated appendicitis.

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.

Wound infection in the obese pregnant woman

Obesity has been linked as a risk factor for wound complications and is becoming a more common occurrence. We reviewed the risk factors, preventive strategies, and recommended management of wound complications in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. The limited available data support the use of prophylactic antibiotic before cesarean delivery, closure of subcutaneous space >2 cm, and maintaining normothermia intraoperatively to help reduce the incidence of postoperative wound complications. Data regarding management of cesarean wound complications in the obese patient are sparse, but they do suggest either primary or secondary closure of wounds is preferred to healing by secondary intention. Antibiotics should be administered in the presence of cellulitis or systemic toxicity. Use of vacuum-assisted wound closure devices may be useful in wound management. There is a need for randomized controlled trials which evaluate the prevention and management of wound complications in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery.

Prophylactic subcutaneous drainage for prevention of wound complications after cesarean delivery--a metaanalysis

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of published data evaluating the effectiveness of prophylactic subcutaneous drainage to prevent wound complications in women undergoing cesarean delivery was performed. We identified 6 randomized trials of prophylactic subcutaneous drainage after cesarean delivery. Meta-analysis was performed and Peto odds ratios were calculated for each study outcome. The use of prophylactic subcutaneous drainage was not associated with a reduction in the rate of wound disruption (odds ratio 0.74, 95% CI: 0.39-1.42, P = .36, infection (odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.70-1.90, P = .58), hematoma (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI: 0.33-3.30, P = .94), or seroma (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI: 0.14-1.43, P = .17) when compared with women who were not receiving subcutaneous drainage. Prophylactic use of subcutaneous drainage does not prevent significant wound complications after cesarean delivery.