Placement of prophylactic drains after laparotomy may increase infectious complications in neonates

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

RATIONALE

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2021. 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.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases, and five trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors, to identify studies for inclusion in the review. The search dates were 20 April 2024 and 20 July 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in participants undergoing pancreatic surgery comparing (1) drain use versus no drain use, (2) different types of drains, or (3) different schedules for drain removal. We excluded quasi-randomised and non-randomised studies.

OUTCOMES

Our critical outcomes were 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, and drain-related complications.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in RCTs.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We synthesised the results for each outcome using meta-analysis with the random-effects model where possible. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included 12 RCTs with a total of 2550 participants. The studies were conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia and were published between 2001 and 2024. All studies were at overall high risk of bias.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

We considered the certainty of the evidence for intra-abdominal infection for the comparison of early versus late drain removal following pancreaticoduodenectomy to be moderate, downgraded due to indirectness. We considered the certainty of the evidence for the other outcomes to be low or very low, mainly downgraded due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Drain use versus no drain use following pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two RCTs with 532 participants randomised to the drainage group (N = 270) and the no drainage group (N = 262) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drain use on 30-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 3.66; 2 studies, 532 participants), 90-day mortality (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.15; 1 study, 137 participants), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.51; 2 studies, 532 participants), and wound infection rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.31; 2 studies, 532 participants) compared with no drain use. Neither study reported on drain-related complications. Drain use versus no drain use following distal pancreatectomy We included two RCTs with 626 participants randomised to the drainage group (N = 318) and the no drainage group (N = 308) after distal pancreatectomy. There were no deaths at 30 days in either group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drain use on 90-day mortality (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.35; 2 studies, 626 participants), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.42; 1 study, 344 participants), and wound infection rate (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.87; 2 studies, 626 participants) compared with no drain use. Neither study reported on drain-related complications. Active versus passive drain following pancreaticoduodenectomy We included three RCTs with 441 participants randomised to the active drain group (N = 222) and the passive drain group (N = 219) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.07; 2 studies, 321 participants), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.43; 3 studies, 441 participants), and wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; 2 studies, 321 participants) compared with a passive drain. None of the studies reported on 90-day mortality. There were no drain-related complications in either group (1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Early versus late drain removal following pancreaticoduodenectomy We included three RCTs with 557 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 279) and the late drain removal group (N = 278) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Low-certainty evidence suggests that early drain removal may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; 3 studies, 557 participants) and wound infection rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.46; 3 studies, 557 participants) compared with late drain removal. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that early drain removal probably results in a slight reduction in intra-abdominal infection rate compared with late drain removal (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; 3 studies, 557 participants). Approximately 58 (34 to 102 participants) out of 1000 participants in the early removal group developed intra-abdominal infections compared with 129 out of 1000 participants in the late removal group. There were no deaths at 90 days in either study group (2 studies, 416 participants). None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drain use compared with no drain use on 90-day mortality, intra-abdominal infection rate, and wound infection rate in people undergoing either pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is also very uncertain whether an active drain is superior, equivalent, or inferior to a passive drain following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that early drain removal is probably superior to late drain removal in terms of intra-abdominal infection rate following pancreaticoduodenectomy for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

FUNDING

None.

REGISTRATION

Registration: not available. Protocol and previous versions available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583, doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub2, doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub3, doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4, and doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5.

Open or Closed? Management of Skin Incisions After Emergency General Surgery Laparotomies

INTRODUCTION

We sought to determine if there was a relationship between skin management and surgical site infections (SSIs) among patients undergoing a laparotomy for emergency general surgery (EGS). We hypothesize that skin closure technique is not associated with SSI.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of adult patients (>18 y) who underwent an exploratory laparotomy for EGS conditions within 6 h of surgical consultation from 2015 to 2019. Patients whose fascia was not closed during the index operation were excluded. Patients were divided into groups: open skin (OS) and closed skin (CS). OS included negative pressure wound therapy or wet-to-dry gauze; CS included closure with staples or sutures. Our primary outcome was the rate of SSI.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 388 patients: 42.3% OS (n = 164) and 57.7% CS (n = 224). The OS group had greater rates of systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS] (54.9% versus 27.7%, P < 0.0001), hollow viscus perforation [HVP] (71.3% versus 20.5%, P < 0.0001), and peritoneal drains (51.2% versus 17.9%, P < 0.0001). Rates of OS management increased as wound class severity increased (0% [I] versus 12.2% [II] versus 15.9% [III] versus 72% [IV], P < 0.0001). The SSI rate for the cohort was 3.6% (n = 14); there was no difference in SSI rates (2.7% versus 4.9%, P = 0.3) between the CS or OS groups. Median length of stay was longer for the OS group (10 d versus 6.5 d, P < 0.0001). Independent predictors of OS management were SIRS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.93, P = 0.04), HVP (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.09-3.8, P = 0.03), and class III/IV wounds (aOR 8.65, 95% CI 4.43-16.89, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

OS management occurs more often in patients with SIRS, HVP, and dirty wounds after EGS laparotomies. However, we found no difference in SSI between groups, suggesting that skin closure can be considered in contaminated or dirty wounds.

Early Drain Removal Versus Routine Drain Removal After Pancreaticoduodenectomy and/or Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Early drain removal (EDR) has been widely accepted, but not been routinely used in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and benefits of EDR versus routine drain removal (RDR) after PD or DP.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on medical search engines from January 1, 2008 to November 1, 2023, for articles that compared EDR versus RDR after PD or DP. The primary outcome was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Further analysis of studies including patients with low-drain fluid amylase (low-DFA) on postoperative day 1 and defining EDR timing as within 3 days was also performed.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven non-RCTs with a total of 9465 patients were included in this analysis. For the primary outcome, the EDR group had a significantly lower rate of CR-POPF (OR 0.23; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, a lower incidence was observed in delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.63, p = 0.02), Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), postoperative hemorrhage (OR 0.55, p = 0.02), reoperation (OR 0.57, p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.70, p = 0.003) and length of stay (MD -2.04, p < 0.001) in EDR. Consistent outcomes were observed in the subgroup analysis of low-DFA patients and definite EDR timing, except for postoperative hemorrhage in EDR.

CONCLUSION

EDR after PD or DP is beneficial and safe, reducing the incidence of CR-POPF and other postoperative complications. Further prospective studies and RCTs are required to validate this finding.

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.

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.

Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection in Neonates: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Surgical site infections (SSI) contribute to postoperative morbidity and mortality in children. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and identify risk factors for SSI in neonates. Methods: Using a defined strategy, three investigators searched articles on neonatal SSI published since 2000. Studies on neonates and/or patients admitted to neonatal intensive care unit following cervical/thoracic/abdominal surgery were included. Risk factors were identified from comparative studies. Meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using RevMan 5.3. Data are (mean ± SD) prevalence. Results: Systematic review-of 885 abstracts screened, 48 studies (27,760 neonates) were included. The incidence of SSI was 5.6% (1,564 patients). SSI was more frequent in males (61.8%), premature babies (77.4%), and following gastrointestinal surgery (95.4%). Meta-analysis-10 comparative studies (16,442 neonates; 946 SSI 5.7%) showed that predictive factors for SSI development were gestational age, birth weight, age at surgery, length of surgical procedure, number of procedure per patient, length of preoperative hospital stay, and preoperative sepsis. Conversely, preoperative antibiotic use was not significantly associated with development of SSI. Conclusions: Younger neonates and those undergoing abdominal procedures are at higher risk for SSI. Given the lack of evidence-based literature, prospective studies may help determine the risk factors for SSI in neonates.

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.

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.

Factors influencing the outcome of image-guided percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscess after gastrointestinal surgery

PURPOSE

To improve the selection of patients for percutaneous abscess drainage (PAD) to treat postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after gastrointestinal surgery, we investigated the factors predictive of outcome.

METHODS

Of 143 consecutive patients with symptomatic postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after a gastrointestinal tract resection, 104 who underwent image-guided PAD as the initial treatment were reviewed. We assessed the possible associations between successful PAD and patient-, abscess-, surgical-, and drainage-related variables, and investigated the success rates of PAD for patients with vs. those without the factors related to successful outcome.

RESULTS

Based on monitoring for 1 year after PAD, the success rate of this procedure was 85.6% (89/104). Multivariate analysis revealed that the interval between surgery and the onset of abscess (p = 0.0234) and a single abscess (p = 0.0038) were independently associated with a successful outcome. Single late-onset abscess resolved completely within 10 weeks in 91.4% of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite new strategies aimed at preventing surgical site infection, PAD remains an important factor in the postoperative management of gastrointestinal surgery in Japan. Initial recognition of the day of onset and the number of abscesses are important prognostic factors.