Meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery

Drainage and irrigation on demand may decrease severe septic complications and mortality in pancreatic resections

PURPOSE

The necessity of routine drain placement in pancreatic resections is controversial. Some randomized controlled trials have shown that the omission of drainage is safe for some patients, whereas reintervention rates and mortality rates are substantial for others. The present study aimed to assess fistula-associated outcomes in the setting of routine drain placement and drain irrigation on demand.

METHODS

Between 01/2017 and 12/2022, perioperative and outcome data from patients who underwent consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies (PD, n = 253) or distal pancreatectomies (DP, n = 72) were prospectively collected in the electronic StuDoQ database and analysed. All patients underwent intraoperative drain placement. Drains were removed starting at postoperative day 2 in PD or at day 5 in DP after testing for amylase concentration. In case of high amylase levels or macroscopically suspicious pancreatic fistulas, drain irrigation was started. Nondrained fluid collections underwent percutaneous radiologic or transluminal endoscopic evacuation.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas were detected in 53 of 325 patients (POPF grade B 16.3%, grade C 1.2%). 43.3% of those had drain irrigation. Additional interventional or endoscopic drainage was necessary in 14 and 5 patients, respectively (overall 5.8%), and were observed in 4.0% of patients with PD and in 12.5% with DP (p = 0.009). Delayed fistula-associated postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) was present in 1.2% (4/325) of patients. The fistula- and delayed PPH-associated reoperation rate was 1.5% (5/325). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were both 1.5% (5/325), and the rate of fistula-associated mortality was 0.6% (2/325). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 4.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

In pancreatectomies, a standardized drainage protocol including on-demand drain irrigation results in very low fistula-associated morbidity and mortality and an infrequent need for interventional or surgical reintervention as compared to previously published drainage studies.

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons' use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67-100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5-20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1-50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.

Early vs late drain removal after pancreatic resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing post-operative drain management is a potential strategy in reducing this major complication.

METHODS

Studies involving pancreatic resections, including both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatic resections (DP), with intra-operative drain placement were screened. Early drain removal was defined as removal before or on the 3rd post-operative day (POD) while late drain removal was defined as after the 3rd POD. The primary outcome was CR-POPF, International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade B and above. Secondary outcomes were all complications, severe complications, post-operative haemorrhage, intra-abdominal infections, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and mortality.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The studies had a total of 8574 patients, comprising 1946 in the early removal group and 6628 in the late removal group. Early drain removal was associated with a significantly lower risk of CR-POPF (OR: 0.24, p < 0.01). Significant reduction in risk of post-operative haemorrhage (OR: 0.55, p < 0.01), intra-abdominal infection (OR: 0.35, p < 0.01), re-admission (OR: 0.63, p < 0.01), re-operation (OR: 0.70, p = 0.03), presence of any complications (OR: 0.46, p < 0.01), and reduced length of stay (SMD: -0.75, p < 0.01) in the early removal group was also observed.

CONCLUSION

Early drain removal is associated with significant reductions in incidence of CR-POPF and other post-operative complications. Further prospective randomised trials in this area are recommended to validate these findings.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care

BACKGROUND

This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Comparison of the complications of passive drainage and active suction drainage after pancreatectomy: A meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effect of passive drainage and active suction drainage on complications after pancreatectomy.

Methods

The databases were searched and covered in this study on the comparison of passive and active suction drainage after pancreatectomy from the database establishment to Feb. 2023. A meta-analysis was conducted with the RevMan5.3 software.

Results

On the whole, 1,903 cases were included in eight studies, including 994 cases in the passive drainage group, 909 in the active suction drainage group, 1,224 in the pancreaticoduodenectomy group, as well as 679 in the distal pancreatectomy group. No statistically significant difference was identified between the two groups in the incidence of total complications, the rate of abdominal hemorrhage, the rate of abdominal effusion, the death rate and the length of stay after pancreatectomy (all P > 0.05), whereas the difference in the incidence of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy between the two groups was of statistical significance (OR = 3.35, 95% CI = 1.12-10.07, P = 0.03). No significant difference was reported in pancreatic fistula between the two groups after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Conclusion

After distal pancreatectomy, active suction drainage might down-regulate the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Adjusting Drain Fluid Amylase for Drain Volume Does Not Improve Pancreatic Fistula Prediction

INTRODUCTION

Drain fluid amylase (DFA) levels have been used to predict clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and guide postoperative drain management. Optimal DFA cutoff thresholds vary between studies, thereby prompting investigation of an alternative assessment technique. As DFA measurements could, in theory, be distorted by variations in ascites fluid production, we hypothesized that adjusting DFA for volume corrected drain fluid amylase (vDFA) would improve CR-POPF predictive models.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients, who underwent pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) and distal pancreatectomies (DP) between 2013 and 2019, was performed. DFAs and vDFAs were measured on postoperative day (POD) 3. Clinicopathologic variables were compared between cohorts by univariable and multivariable analyses and Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

Patients developing a CR-POPF were more likely to be male and have elevated DFA, vDFA, and body mass index (BMI). vDFA use did not contribute to a superior CR-POPF predictive model compared to DFA-a finding consistent on subanalysis of surgery type PD versus DP. In CR-POPF predictive models, DFA, vDFA, and male sex significantly improved CR-POPF predictive models when considering both surgery subtypes, while only DFA and vDFA significantly improved models when cohorts were segregated by surgery type.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative DFA remains a preferred method of predicting CR-POPF as the proposed vDFA assessment technique only adds complexity without increased discriminability.

Efficacy and safety of early drain removal following pancreatic resections: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No consensus was reached with regard to the effect of EDR on postoperative outcomes after pancreatic surgery. The meta-analysis was designed to explore the efficacy and safety of early drain removal (EDR).

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed. Data extraction and correction were performed by three researchers. For dichotomous and continuous outcomes, we calculated the pooled risk difference and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The heterogeneity of included studies was evaluated using Cochran's Q and I² test. The stratified analyses of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies including 3 RCTs and 7 non RCTs were included for meta-analysis, among which 1780 patients with EDR and 5613 patients with late drain removal (LDR) were enrolled. The meta-analysis of both all the available studies and studies only with selected low risk patients indicated that EDR group had significantly lower incidences of Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and total complications for both PD and DP. However, no advantages of EDR were observed in the meta-analysis of the 3 RCTs. In addition, EDR was associated with a lower incidence of intra-abdominal infection after PD. While for DP, EDR group had decreased risk of delayed gastric emptying and re-operation, and shorter postoperative in-hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis demonstrates that EDR is effective and safe for both PD and DP considering POPF and total complications, especially for patients with low concentration of postoperative drain fluid amylase.

Early drain removal and late drain removal in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Whether early or late drain removal (EDR/LDR) is better for patients after pancreatic resection remains controversial. We aim to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of early or late drain removal in patients who undergo pancreatic resection. We searched seven databases from January 1, 2000, through September 2021, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing EDR vs. LDR in patients after pancreatic resection. We separately pooled effect estimates across RCTs and observational studies. Finally, we included 4 RCTs with 711 patients and 8 nonRCTs with 7207 patients. Based on the pooled RCT data, compared to LDR, EDR reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) (RR: -2.59, 95% CI: -4.13 to -1.06) and hospital cost (RR: -1022.27, 95% CI: -1990.39 to -54.19). Based on the pooled nonRCT data, EDR may reduce the incidence of all complications (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.63), pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.45), wound infection (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.06 to 5.45)), reoperation (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.96) and hospital readmission (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.69). There was an uncertain effect on mortality (OR from pooled nonRCTs: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.41 to 2.53) and delayed gastric emptying (RR from pooled RCTs: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.41). The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that early drain removal is associated with lower hospital cost, is safe and may reduce the incidence of complications compared to late drain removal in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Safety evaluation of early drain removal following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A single-center retrospective cohort study

Objectives

The effects of early drain removal (EDR) on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains to be investigated. This single-center retrospective cohort study was designed to explore the safety of EDR after PD.

Methods

A total of 112 patients undergoing PD with drain fluid amylase (DFA) on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 3 <= 5000 were divided into EDR and late drain removal (LDR). Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used. We compared postoperative outcomes between two groups and explore the risk factors of total complications using univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses.

Results

No statistical differences were found in primary outcomes, including Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (Original cohort: 5.71% vs. 3.90%; P = 1.000; PSM cohort: 3.33% vs. 6.67%; P = 1.000), and total complications (Original cohort: 17.14% vs. 32.47%; P = 0.093; PSM cohort: 13.33% vs. 33.33%; P = 0.067). The EDR was associated with shorter in-hospital stay (Original cohort: 11 days vs. 15 days; P < 0.0001; PSM cohort: 11 days vs. 15 days; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

EDR on POD 3 is safe for patients undergoing PD with low risk of POPF.

Drain use in pancreatic surgery: Results from an international survey among experts in the field

BACKGROUND

Drain use in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. This survey sought to evaluate habits, experiences, and opinions of experts in the field on the use of drains to provide interesting insights for pancreatic surgeons worldwide.

METHODS

An online survey designed via Google Forms was sent in December 2020 to experienced surgeons of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-two surgeons (42/63, 67%) completed the survey. During their career, 74% (31/42) performed personally >500 pancreatic resections; of these, 9 (21%) >1,500. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents (29/42) declared to always use drains during pancreatic resections and 17% (7/42) in >50% of the operations. For these participants, the use of drains does not increase but reduces the risk of pancreatic fistula and other complications, and more importantly, helps to detect them earlier and manage them better. By contrast, 2 surgeons (5%) declared to never apply drains, whereas other 4 (10%) use drains only in selective cases, deeming that drains increase the risk of infection and other complications. When applied, drains are managed very heterogeneously as for the type of drains, enzyme testing, and removal schedules. Four participants declared to practice continuous irrigation. Twenty-two surgeons (55%) remove drains routinely within the third postoperative day, other 11 (27.5%) only in selected cases, whereas 7 (17.5%) normally keep drains longer.

CONCLUSION

Despite plenty of publications on this topic, drain management in pancreatic surgery remains very heterogeneous. Safety and the surgeon´s personal experience seem to play a determining role.

The Role of Abdominal Drain Cultures in Managing Abdominal Infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are common in hospitalized patients, both in and outside of the intensive care unit. Management principles include antimicrobial therapy and source control. Typically, these infections are polymicrobial, and intra-operative samples will guide the targeted antimicrobial therapy. Although the use of prophylactic abdominal drains in patients undergoing abdominal surgery is decreasing, the use of drains to treat IAI, both in surgical and non-surgical strategies for abdominal infection, is increasing. In this context, samples from abdominal drains are often used to assist in antimicrobial decision making. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the current role of abdominal drains in surgery, discuss the importance of biofilm formation in abdominal drains and the mechanisms involved, and review the clinical data on the use of sampling these drains for diagnostic purposes. We conclude that biofilm formation and the colonization of abdominal drains is common, which precludes the use of abdominal fluid to reliably diagnose IAI and identify the pathogens involved. We recommend limiting the use of drains and, when present, avoiding routine microbiological sampling.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.

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

In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Prospective Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a New Surgical Tube Fixation Method: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Various tubes may be fixed to the skin by ligation using silk sutures after gastrointestinal surgery. We investigated the effects of a skin substitute, "Nonaht®," on pain and skin inflammation at the fixation sites of various tubes.

METHODS

The effects of tubes (abdominal drains, small intestinal feeding tubes, and bile duct drainage tubes) fixed in place using either silk sutures or Nonaht were compared for 1-3 months.

RESULTS

The median pain scores at the fixation site when abdominal drains were removed were 1.0 with silk sutures and 0 with Nonaht (p < 0.001). Scarring at the fixation site at postoperative month (POM) 1 occurred in 13 of 28 cases in the silk suture group and in no cases in the Nonaht group (p < 0.001). The median pain scores at the fixation site with long-term tubes on postoperative day (POD) 14 and POM 1 were 2.0 and 1.0, respectively, with silk sutures, and none at all time points with Nonaht (p < 0.001). Scarring at the fixation site at POM 3 occurred in all 10 cases in the silk suture group and in no cases in the Nonaht group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with conventional skin fixation of tubes using silk sutures were continuously aware of pain at the fixation site and developed skin damage and subsequent scar formation, especially for tubes inserted for ≥ 1 month. The use of Nonaht may reduce the incidence of dermatitis and wound infections at tube fixation sites, thereby promoting early postoperative recovery.

Postoperative Outcome of Surgery with Pancreatic Resection for Retroperitoneal Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Results of a Retrospective Bicentric Analysis on 50 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUNDS

Multivisceral resection is the standard treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) during which pancreas resection may be necessary.

METHODS

All consecutive patients operated for RPS with pancreatectomy in 2 expert centers between 1993 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (median age: 57 years, IQR: [46-65]) with a primary (n = 33) or recurrent (n = 17) RPS underwent surgery requiring pancreas resection (distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 43), pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (n = 5), central pancreatectomy (n = 1), and atypical resection (n = 1)). Severe postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) was observed in 14 patients (28%), and 7 of them (14%) required reoperation for anastomotic bowel leakage (n = 5), gastric volvulus (n = 1), or hemorrhage (n = 1). Pancreas-related complications occurred in 25 patients (50%): 10 postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) (grade A (n = 12), grade B (n = 6), grade C (n = 1)), 13 delayed gastric emptying (grade A (n = 8), grade B (n = 4), grade C (n = 1)), 1 hemorrhage (grade C). Postoperative mortality was 4% (n = 2), all following PD, caused by a massive intraoperative air embolism and by a multiple organ failure after anastomotic leakage. Pathological analysis confirmed pancreatic involvement in 17 (34%) specimens. Microscopically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 22 (44%) patients. After a follow-up of 60 months, 36 patients (75%) were still alive, among whom 27 without recurrence (56%).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic resection during RPS surgery is associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. PD should be avoided whenever possible while other procedures seemed achievable without excessive morbidity and with long-term survival.

Early Drain Removal is Safe in Patients With Low or Intermediate Risk of Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

This multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to test the hypothesis that early drain removal (EDR) could decrease the incidence of grade 2-4 complications for patients undoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with low or intermediate risk of postoperative fistula (POPF).

BACKGROUND

The safety and effects of EDR on postoperative complications after PD are still controversial.

METHODS

A multi-center RCT at six tertiary referral hospitals was carried out (NCT03055676). Patients who met the inclusion criteria, including drain amylase level less than 5000 U/L on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD 3, and drain output less than 300 ml per day within 3 days after surgery, were enrolled. Patients were then randomized to the EDR group or the routine drain removal (RDR) group. In the EDR group, all drainage tubes were removed on POD3. In the RDR group, drainage tubes were removed on POD 5 or beyond. Primary outcome was the incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade 2-4 complications. Secondary outcomes were comprehensive complication index (CCI), grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), total medical expenses and post-operative in-hospital stay etc., within 90 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 692 patients were screened, and 312 patients were eligible for randomization. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups and 96.8% of these 312 patients had low or intermediate risk of POPF, according to the 10-point fistula risk score. A total of 20.5% of the patients in the EDR group suffered at least one grade 2-4 complication, versus 26.3% in the RDR group (P = 0.229). Multi-variate analysis showed older age (> 65 years old) and blood transfusion were independent risk factors for grade 2-4 complications. The rate of grade B/C POPF was low in either group (3.8% vs 6.4%, P = 0.305). The CCI of the two groups was also comparable (20.9 vs 20.9, P = 0.253). Total medical expenses were not significantly different. Post-operative in-hospital stay was clinically similar (15 d vs 16 d, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of the patients undergoing PD met the inclusion criteria, predicting low incidence of grade B/C POPF and major complications. EDR was safe in these patients but did not significantly decrease major complications.

Curing pancreatic cancer

The distinct biology of pancreatic cancer with aggressive and early invasive tumor cells, a tumor promoting microenvironment, late diagnosis, and high therapy resistance poses major challenges on clinicians, researchers, and patients. In current clinical practice, a curative approach for pancreatic cancer can only be offered to a minority of patients and even for those patients, the long-term outcome is grim. This bitter combination will eventually let pancreatic cancer rise to the second leading cause of cancer-related mortalities. With surgery being the only curative option, complete tumor resection still remains the center of pancreatic cancer treatment. In recent years, new developments in neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment have emerged. Together with improved perioperative care including complication management, an increasing number of patients have become eligible for tumor resection. Basic research aims to further increase these numbers by new methods of early detection, better tumor modelling and personalized treatment options. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on clinical and biologic features, surgical and non-surgical treatment options, and the improved collaboration of clinicians and basic researchers in pancreatic cancer that will hopefully result in more successful ways of curing pancreatic cancer.

Working towards an ERAS Protocol for Pancreatic Transplantation: A Narrative Review

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) initially started in the early 2000s as a series of protocols to improve the perioperative care of surgical patients. They aimed to increase patient satisfaction while reducing postoperative complications and postoperative length of stay. Despite these protocols being widely adopted in many fields of surgery, they are yet to be adopted in pancreatic transplantation: a high-risk surgery with often prolonged length of postoperative stay and high rate of complications. We have analysed the literature in pancreatic and transplantation surgery to identify the necessary preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative components of an ERAS pathway in pancreas transplantation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections

Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional drainage, wound infection, total complications, and length of hospital stay were the outcomes of interest. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (MDs) were computed by the inverse variance method. Summary effect measures are presented together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which was mostly moderate for evaluated outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and five non-randomized trials including 5,050 patients were included. Bile leakage rate was higher in the drain group (OR: 2.32; 95% CI 1.18-4.55; p = 0.01) and interventional drains were inserted more frequently in this group (OR: 1.53; 95% CI 1.11-2.10; p = 0.009). Total complications were higher (OR: 1.71; 95% CI 1.45-2.03; p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was longer (MD: 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.47-1.56 days; p < 0.001) in the drain group. The use of prophylactic drainage showed no beneficial effects after major liver resection; however, the definitions and classifications used to report on postoperative complications and surgical complexity are heterogeneous among the published studies. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are required to conclusively determine the effects of drainage after major liver resection.

Evidence-based evaluation of abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery

Pancreatic fistula is the most common and dreaded complication after pancreatic resection, responsible for high morbidity and mortality (2 to 30%). Prophylactic drainage of the operative site is usually put in place to decrease and/or detect postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) early. However, this policy is currently debated and the data from the literature are unclear. The goal of this update is to analyze the most recent evidence-based data with regard to prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection (pancreatoduodenectomy [PD] or distal pancreatectomy [PD]). This systematic review of the literature between 1990 and 2020 sought to answer the following questions: should drainage of the operative site after pancreatectomy be routine or adapted to the risk of POPF? If a drainage is used, how long should it remain in the abdomen, what criteria should be used to decide to remove it, and what type of drainage should be preferred? Has the introduction of laparoscopy changed our practice? The literature seems to indicate that it is not possible to recommend the omission of routine drainage after pancreatic resection. By contrast, an approach based on the risk of POPF using the fistula risk score seems beneficial. When a drain is placed, early removal (within 5 days) seems feasible based on clinical, laboratory (C-reactive protein, leukocyte count, neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio, dosage and dynamic of amylase in the drains on D1, D3±D5) and radiological findings. This is in line with the development of enhanced recovery programs after pancreatic surgery. Finally, this literature review did not find any specific data relative to mini-invasive pancreatic surgery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical drain management after the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: draining-tract-targeted works better than standard management

Purpose

Drains’ role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of “standard” and “draining-tract-targeted” management of abdominal drains still in situ after diagnosing a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

Methods

PubMed and Scopus were searched for “pancreaticoduodenectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy or duodenopancreatectomy,” “Whipple,” “proximal pancreatectomy,” “pylorus-preserving pancreatectomy,” and “postoperative pancreatic fistula or POPF.”. Main outcomes included clinically relevant (CR) POPF, grade-C POPF, overall mortality, POPF-related mortality, and CR-POPF-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of radiological and/or endoscopic interventions, reoperations, and completion pancreatectomies.

Results

Overall, 12,089 studies were retrieved by the search of the English literature (01/01/1990–31/12/2018). Three hundred and twenty-six studies (90,321 patients) reporting ≥ 100 PDs and ≥ 10 PD/year were finally included into the study. Average incidences were obtained by averaging the incidence rates reported in the single articles. Pooled incidences were calculated by combining the number of events and the total number of patients considered in the various studies. These were then meta-analyzed using DerSimonian and Laird’s (1986) method. Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare pooled incidences between groups. Post hoc testing was used to see which groups differed. The meta-analyzed incidences were compared using a fixed effect for moderators. “Draining-tract-targeted” management showed a significant advantage over “standard” management in four clinically relevant outcomes out of eight according to pool analysis and in one of them according to meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Clinically, “draining-targeted” management of POPF should be preferred to “standard” management.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00423-020-02005-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To systematically analyze the impact of prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement or omission in uro-oncologic surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review follows the Cochrane recommendations and was conducted in line with the PRISMA and the AMSTAR-II criteria. A comprehensive database search including Medline, Web-of-Science, and CENTRAL was performed based on the PICO criteria. All review steps were done by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The search identified 3427 studies of which eleven were eligible for qualitative and ten for quantitative analysis reporting on 3664 patients. Six studies addressed radical prostatectomy (RP), four studies partial nephrectomy (PN) and one study radical cystectomy. For RP a reduction in postoperative complications was found without drainage (odds ratio (OR)[95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.62[0.44;0.87], p = 0.006), while there were no differences for re-intervention (OR[CI]: 0.72[0.39;1.33], p = 0.300), lymphocele OR[CI]: 0.60[0.22;1.60], p = 0.310), hematoma (OR[CI]: 0.68[0.18;2.53], p = 0.570) or urinary retention (OR[CI]: 0.57[0.26;1.29], p = 0.180). For partial nephrectomy no differences were found for overall complications (OR[CI]: 0.99[0.65;1.51], p = 0.960) or re-intervention (OR[CI]: 1.16[0.31;4.38], p = 0.820). For RC, there were no differences for all parameters. The overall-quality of evidence was assessed as low.

CONCLUSION

The omission of drains can be recommended for standardized RP and PN cases. However, deviations from the standard can still mandate the placement of a drain and remains surgeon preference. For RC, there is little evidence to recommend the omission of drains and future research should focus on this issue.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO)

CRD42019122885.

The efficacy of polyglycolic acid felt reinforcement in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy in patients with main pancreatic duct less than 3 mm in diameter and soft pancreas undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PLANET-PJ trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized phase III trial in Japan and Korea

BACKGROUND

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy is performed for malignant and benign diseases of the pancreatic head region. The procedure is considered highly difficult and highly invasive. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is an important complication because of several consequent complications, including intraabdominal haemorrhage, often increasing hospital stays and surgical mortality. Although many kinds of pancreaticojejunostomy aimed at reducing POPF have been examined to date, the technique has not yet been standardized. We devised a new method using double-coated polyglycolic acid felt after pancreaticojejunostomy. The aim of the PLANET-PJ trial is to evaluate the superiority of polyglycolic acid felt reinforcement in preventing POPF after pancreaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing partial pancreatoduodenectomy to previous anastomosis methods.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with pancreatic or periampullary lesions in whom it is judged that the main pancreatic duct diameter was 3 mm or less on the left side of the portal vein without pancreatic parenchymal atrophy due to obstructive pancreatitis are considered eligible for inclusion. This study is designed as a multicentre randomized phase III trial in Japan and the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients will be centrally randomized to either group A (polyglycolic acid felt reinforcement) or group B (control). In total, 514 patients will be randomized in 31 high-volume centres in Japan and Republic of Korea. The primary endpoint is the incidence of POPF (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C).

DISCUSSION

The PLANET-PJ trial evaluates the efficacy of a new method using double-coated polyglycolic acid felt reinforcement for preventing POPF after pancreaticojejunostomy. This new method may reduce POPF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03331718 . University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000029647. Registered on 30 November 2017. https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000033874.

Optimizing the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery

Pancreatic cancer is likely to become the second most frequent cause of cancer-associated mortality within the next decade. Surgical resection with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy currently provides the only chance of long-term survival. However, only 10-20% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed with localized, surgically resectable disease. The majority of patients present with metastatic disease and are not candidates for surgery, while surgery remains underused even in those with resectable disease owing to historical concerns regarding safety and efficacy. However, advances made over the past decade in the safety and efficacy of surgery have resulted in perioperative mortality of around 3% and 5-year survival approaching 30% after resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, owing to advances in both surgical techniques and systemic chemotherapy, the indications for resection have been extended to include locally advanced tumours. Many aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, such as the management of postoperative morbidities, sequencing of resection and systemic therapy, and use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection for tumours previously considered unresectable, are rapidly evolving. In this Review, we summarize the current status of and new developments in pancreatic cancer surgery, while highlighting the most important research questions for attempts to further optimize outcomes.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage after distal pancreatectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains has been common practice in abdominal operations including pancreatic surgery. The PANDRA trial showed that the omission of drains following pancreatic head resection was non-inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reinterventions and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. The aim of the present PANDRA II trial is to evaluate the clinical outcome with versus without prophylactic drain placement after distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

The PANDRA II trial is a mono-center, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial with two parallel study groups. In the control group at least one passive intra-abdominal drain is placed at the pancreatic resection margin. In the experimental group no drains are placed. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) measuring all postoperative complications within 90 days. Secondary endpoints are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula, chyle leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, reinterventions and reoperations, surgical site infection, and abdominal fascia dehiscence. Moreover, length of hospital stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the rate of readmission after discharge from hospital (up to day 90 after surgery) are assessed. We will need to analyze 252 patients to test the hypothesis that no drainage is non-inferior to drain placement in terms of the CCI (δ 7.5 points) in a one-sided t test with a one-sided level of significance of 2.5% and a power of 80%.

Discussion

The results of the PANDRA II trial will help to evaluate the effect of an omission of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage on the rate of complications after open or minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00013763. Registered on 6 March 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3442-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Drain or No Drain Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Unsolved Dilemma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is no consensus regarding the routine placement of intra-abdominal drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We aim to determine the effects of intraperitoneal drain placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy on 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors were identified from the 2014-2015 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Univariate and multivariate analyses adjusting for known prognostic variables were performed. A subgroup analysis was performed based on the risk for development of postoperative pancreatic leak determined by the pancreatic duct caliber, parenchymal texture, and body mass index.

RESULTS

A total of 6858 patients with pancreatic tumors who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified in the 2014-2015 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database dataset. In all, 87.4% of patients had intraperitoneal drains placed. A 30-day mortality rate was higher in the no-drain group (2.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.003). Patients in the drain group had a higher incidence of overall morbidity (49.5% vs. 41.2%, P = 0.0008), delayed gastric emptying (18.1% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.004), pancreatic fistulae (19.4% vs. 9.9%, P ⩽ 0.0001), and prolonged length of hospital stay over 10 days (43.7% vs. 34.9%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on risk categories revealed a higher 30-day mortality rate in the no-drain group among patients with high-risk features (3.1% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.02). Delayed gastric emptying and pancreatic fistula development remained significantly higher in the drain group only in the high-risk category. Prolonged length of hospital stay and composite morbidity remained higher in the drain group regardless of the risk category.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date that aims at clarifying the pros and cons of the intraperitoneal drain placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors. We showed a higher 30-day mortality rate if drain insertion was omitted during pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with softer pancreatic textures, smaller pancreatic duct caliber, and body mass index over 25. Postoperative 30-day morbidity rate was higher if a drain was inserted regardless of the risk category. Further randomized controlled trials with prospective evaluation of stratification factors for fistula risk are needed to establish a clear recommendation.

Mortality and postoperative complications after different types of surgical reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy-a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy/PD is a technically demanding pancreatic resection. Options of surgical reconstruction include (1) the child reconstruction defined as pancreatojejunostomy/PJ followed by hepaticojejunostomy/HJ and the gastrojejunostomy/GJ "the standard/s-Child," (2) the s-child reconstruction with an additional Braun enteroenterostomy "BE-Child," or (3) Isolated-Roux-En-Y-pancreaticojejunostomy "Iso-Roux-En-Y," in which the pancreas anastomosis is reconstructed in a separate loop after the GJ. Yet, the impact of these reconstruction methods on patients' outcome has not been sufficiently compared in a systematic manner.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines by screening Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web-of-Science. Articles meeting predefined criteria were extracted and meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified comparing BE-Child or Isolated-Roux-En-Y vs. s-Child. Compared to s-Child neither BE-Child (p = 0.43) nor Iso-Roux-En-Y (p = 0.94) displayed an impact on postoperative mortality, whereas BE-Child showed less postoperative complications (p = 0.02). BE-Child (p = 0.15) and Iso-Roux-En-Y (p = 0.61) did not affect postoperative pancreatic fistula/POPF in general, but BE-Child was associated with a decrease of clinically relevant POPF (p = 0.005), clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying/DGE B/C (p = 0.004), bile leaks (p = 0.01), and hospital stay (p = 0.06). BE-Child entailed also an increased operation time (p = 0.0002) with no impact on DGE A/B/C, hemorrhage, surgical site infections and pulmonary complications.

CONCLUSION

BE-Child is associated with a decreased risk for postoperative complications, particularly a decreased risk for clinically relevant DGE, POPF, and bile leaks, whereas Iso-Roux-En-Y does not seem to affect the clinical course after PD. Therefore, BE seems to be a valuable surgical method to improve patients' outcome after PD.

[Evidence-based perioperative medicine]

Perioperative medical interventions are an integral part of modern surgical management. In addition to the main manual aspects of surgical interventions, surgeons must also be familiar with preoperative and postoperative medical interventions. This ranges from the indications for perioperative anticoagulation, handling of drainage, adjusting the perioperative analgesia, prescribing an antibiotic prophylaxis to deciding whether a preoperative bowel preparation is necessary. Therefore, this article exemplifies some areas in perioperative medicine. Based on the best available evidence, it should always be critically assessed whether these perioperative interventions really contribute to the success of the treatment.

Standardization of perioperative care facilitates safe discharge by postoperative day five after pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a complex surgical procedure associated with high morbidity and prolonged length of stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery principles have reduced complications rate and length of stay for multiple types of operations. We hypothesized that implementation of a standardized perioperative care pathway would facilitate safe discharge by five days after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy 18 months prior to and 18 months following implementation of a perioperative care pathway at a quaternary center performing high volume pancreatic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (mean age 63 ± 10 years, 52% female), 81 before and 64 following pathway implementation, and the groups were similar in terms of preoperative comorbidities. The percentage of patients discharged within 5 days of surgery increased from 36% to 64% following pathway implementation (p = 0.001), with no observed differences in post-operative serious adverse events (p = 0.34), pancreatic fistula grade B or C (p = 0.28 and p = 0.27 respectively), or delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.46). Multivariate regression analysis showed length of stay ≤5 days three times more likely after pathway implementation. Rates of readmission within 30 days (20% pre- vs. 22% post-pathway (p = 0.75)) and 90 days (27% pre- vs. 36% post-pathway (p = 0.27)) were unchanged after pathway implementation, and were no different between patients discharged before or after day 5 at both 30 days (19% ≤5 days vs. 23% ≥ 6 days (p = 0.68)) and 90 days (32% ≤5 days vs. 30% ≥ 6 days (p = 0.81)).

CONCLUSIONS

Standardizing perioperative care via enhanced recovery protocols for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy facilitates safe discharge by post-operative day five.

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 last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.

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 studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies 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 used the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.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. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.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 mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.