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

Evidence-based approach for intraabdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Historically intraoperative drains were employed after pancreatic surgery but over the last decade, there has been debate over the routine usage of drains.

AIM

To assess the necessity of intra-abdominal drain placement, identify the most effective drain type, and determine the optimal timing for drain removal.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords until December 2023. From an initial pool of 1910 articles, 48 were included after exclusion and screening. The primary outcomes analyzed were clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), overall morbidity, and mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Routine use of drains is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of CR-POPF and DGE. Conversely, patients who did not have drains placed experienced a significant reduction in morbidity, readmission rates, and reoperations. No significant differences were observed between active and passive drain types. Early drain removal (< 3 days) yielded favorable outcomes compared to delayed removal.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies did not demonstrate an advantage of routine drain placement following pancreatic resection, potentially contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to use drains should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. However, early drain removal can substantially reduce morbidity.

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.

Comparative Assessment of Outcomes: Abdominal Drain Versus No Abdominal Drain After Left Pancreatectomy-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between abdominal drain placement and no drain placement postpancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND

Left pancreatectomy (LP) is a surgical procedure commonly employed for various pancreatic conditions, often associated with postoperative complications like postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). While routine abdominal drainage following LP has been standard practice, recent evidence suggests potential benefits of omitting this approach.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase from inception up to 15 March 2024, yielding nine studies comprising 15,817 patients. Data were extracted from randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting primary and secondary outcomes. The analysis was performed in Revman. Risk ratios were calculated with 95% CIs, and a P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 13,081 patients underwent drain placement after left pancreatectomy, and 2736 patients were included in the no-drain group. Out of the total, 45.1% (n=7140) patients were male, with 45.9% (n=6012) males in the drain group and 41.2% (n=1128) males in the no-drain group. Major morbidity, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, was significantly lower in the no-drain group [relative risk (RR): 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93, P =0.006]. Similarly, lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.67, P <0.00001), readmission (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59-0.96, P =0.02), and surgical site infections (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95, P =0.009) were observed in the no-drain group. In addition, a shorter length of hospital stay was noted in this group [mean difference (MD): -1.65, 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.81, P =0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Omitting routine drainage after a left pancreatectomy is associated with reduced complications and shorter hospital stays, supporting its potential benefits in improving postoperative outcomes.

Meta-analysis of routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage following distal pancreatectomy: Does the best available evidence overcome "HPB surgeon's paranoia"?

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted (last search: 20th April 2024). All comparative studies reporting outcomes of DP with routine abdominal drainage and no drainage were included and their risk of bias were assessed. Overall perioperative complications, clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postoperative haemorrhage, surgical site infections (SSIs), need for radiological intervention, reoperation, re-admission, and postoperative mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies (2 randomised and 6 observational) reporting 8164 patients who underwent DP with (n = 6394) or without (n = 1770) routine abdominal drainage were included. Routine abdominal drainage was associated with significantly higher rates of CR-POPF (OR 2.87; 95 % CI 2.34-3.52, p < 0.00001), radiological intervention (OR 1.33; 95 % CI 1.10-1.61, p = 0.0003), SSIs (OR 2.47; 95 % CI 1.29-4.72, p = 0.006) or re-admission (OR 1.54; 95 % CI 1.30-1.82, P < 0.00001) compared to no use of drain. However, there was no significant difference in C-D III or higher postoperative morbidities (OR 1.25; 95 % CI 0.98-1.60, p = 0.08), DGE (OR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.81-1.67, p = 0.41), reoperation (OR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.80-1.54, P = 0.53), postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.59; 95 % CI 0.18-2.00, P = 0.40), or mortality (RD 0.0; 95 % CI -0.01-0.01, p = 0.76) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis of best available evidence indicates safety of "no drain policy" in distal pancreatectomy considering its lower risk of CR-POPF, re-intervention and hospital re-admission. More randomised evidence is required to overcome the "HPB surgeon's paranoia".

Abdominal drainage after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: out of sight, out of mind?

BACKGROUNDS

The use of drains in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The present study investigated postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without intraperitoneal drain placement.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided in drain group (DG), including patients with prophylactic abdominal drain placed, and no-drain group (NDG) including those without drain. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes, using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

116 patients were selected. After matching, DG and NDG consisted of 29 patients each. The rates of POPF and abdominal collection were lower in NDG in comparison to DG (3.4% vs. 27.6%, p 0.025 and 3.4% vs. 31.0%, p 0.011, respectively). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the NDG (5 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001). No difference between the groups was found for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Drain omission was associated with lower rates of POPF and abdominal collections, as well as shorter hospital stays, not affecting the rate of severe complication, reoperation and readmission.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.

METHODS/DESIGN

Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drain strategy after distal pancreatectomy: A multicenter propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

/Objectives Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Traditionally, surgical drains are placed routinely after DP, but some question its efficacy and postulate that the use of drains may convert a self-limiting postoperative collection into a POPF. This study aimed to compare outcomes between three institutions with varying drainage strategies.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of intraoperative prophylactic drain placement during DP (2010-2019). The primary outcome is major morbidity. Propensity score matching was used to obtain comparable groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 963 patients after DP were included. One center did not place a surgical drain routinely, but decided to place a drain when unsatisfactory pancreatic closure occurred. Prophylactic abdominal drains were placed in 805 patients (84%) of which 74 could be matched to 74 patients without a drain. The rate of major morbidity (8% vs 19%, p = 0.054) and radiological interventions (5% vs 12%, p = 0.147) were non-significantly lower in the no-drain group as compared to the prophylactic drain group, respectively. The rates of POPF (4% vs 16%, p = 0.014) were lower in the no-drain group.

CONCLUSION

In this international retrospective multicenter study, a selective no-drain strategy after DP was not associated with higher rates major morbidity or radiological interventions as compared to routine prophylactic abdominal drainage. Although the rate of POPF was lower in the no-drain group, randomized trials should confirm the safety and outcome of a no-drain strategy after DP.

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.

Prophylactic Intra-Peritoneal Drainage After Pancreatic Resection: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage has been considered to be an effective measure to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatectomy. However, routinely placed drainage during abdominal surgery may be unnecessary or even harmful to some patients, due to the possibility of increasing complications. And there is still controversy about the prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage after pancreatectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the incidence of complications after either pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) in the drain group and no-drain group.

Methods

Data were retrieved from four electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to December 2020, including the outcomes of individual treatment after PD and DP, mortality, morbidity, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leak, wound infection, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, intervened radiology (IR), and readmission. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and the criteria of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies included.

Results

We included 15 studies after strict screening. 13 studies with 16,648 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different surgery procedures, and 4 studies with 6,990 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different fistula risk. For patients undergoing PD, the drain group had lower mortality but higher rate of CR-POPF than the no-drain group. For patients undergoing DP, the drain group had higher rates of CR-POPF, wound infection and readmission. There were no significant differences in bile leak, hemorrhage, DGE, intra-abdominal abscess, and IR in either overall or each subgroup. For Low-risk subgroup, the rates of hemorrhage, DGE and morbidity were higher after drainage. For High-risk subgroup, the rate of hemorrhage was higher while the rates of reoperation and morbidity were lower in the drain group.

Conclusions

Intraperitoneal drainage may benefit some patients undergoing PD, especially those with high pancreatic fistula risk. For DP, current evidences suggest that routine drainage might not benefit patients, but no clear conclusions can be drawn because of the study limitations.

Irrigation and passive drainage of pancreatic stump after distal pancreatectomy in high-risk patients: an innovative approach to reduce pancreatic fistula

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) represents the most common form of morbidity after distal pancreatectomy (DP). The aim of this study was to illustrate an innovative technique of irrigation and passive drainage to reduce clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) incidence in high-risk patients undergoing DP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve consecutive high-risk patients received irrigation and passive drainage of the pancreatic stump with a Salem sump drainage after DP. The Salem sump was irrigated with 100 ml/h of Ringer solution for 2 postoperative days (POD). In the case of low-drain amylase and lipase levels on POD 3, the irrigation was reduced to 50 ml/h. Persistence of low-drain pancreatic enzymes on POD 4 allowed for interruption of irrigation and subsequent removal of drainage from POD 7 onward in the absence of evidence of any pancreatic fistula.

RESULTS

Overall, 16.6% of the patients experienced a grade 3 or higher surgical complication. We experienced only one case of POPF: the fistula was classified as grade B and it was managed with radiologic drainage of the fluid collection. We did not experience any case of re-operation nor in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrigation with passive drainage of the pancreatic stump after DP is an interesting approach for CR-POPF prevention in high-risk patients.

Surgical drain placement in distal pancreatectomy is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula and higher readmission rates

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) can result in significant morbidity after distal pancreatectomy (DP). It is common practice to place prophylactic surgical drains during DP to monitor and minimize POPF complications; however, their use is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine if drainage helps to prevent adverse outcomes and decrease the need for additional interventions after DP.

METHODS

All patients who underwent DP without vascular resection were identified in the 2014 Targeted Pancreatectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File. Patients undergoing emergency procedures, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 5, or diagnosed with preoperative sepsis were excluded. Univariate and multiple variable analyses were performed to evaluate postoperative outcomes based on use of surgical drain.

RESULTS

A total of 1158 patients (age median: 62; interquartile range: 16; female 58.6%) underwent elective DP with 85.1% (n = 985) having drain placed at time of operation. Laparoscopic technique was used in the majority of patients (54.1%, n = 619). POPF occurred in 201 patients (17.5%). Additional percutaneous drain was required in 106 patients (9.2%). POPF was higher in surgical drain group, 19.4% vs 6.9% (P < .001). Need for percutaneous drain was similar between drain and no drain groups, 9.3% vs 8.1% (P = .600). Postoperative sepsis, shock, major complication, reoperation, and 30-day mortality was similar between drain and no drain groups (all P > .05). However, readmission was higher in the surgical drain group, 17.8% vs 10.4% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.1; P = .018). After adjusting for age, ASA, and operative time, readmission remained higher in the surgical drain group (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.1-3.2; P = .016).

CONCLUSION

The use of surgical drainage during DP was associated with increased incidence of readmission and POPF. Drainage showed no effect on outcomes of postoperative sepsis, shock, major complications, reoperation, and 30-day mortality. Based on these results, routine prophylactic drainage should be reconsidered for patients undergoing DP.

Prediction of Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy: Is It Necessary to Place Prophylactic Drain?

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the predictive factors for pancreatic fistula (PF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) among preoperative and intraoperative parameters, and to clarify the patients who did not require drain placement.

Methods

Between July 2009 and April 2017, a total of 102 consecutive patients underwent DP at Hyogo College of Medicine. Preoperative and intraoperative data were collected, and the predictors of PF after DP were identified. PF was identified in 35 patients (34%). In the multivariate analysis, 3 factors [body mass index (BMI) ≥22.4, contiguous organ resection, and pancreatic thickness ≥11 mm] were found to be independent predictors of PF (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9–17; P = 0.002 odds ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–28; P = 0.009; odds ratio, 11.6; 95% confidence interval, 3.7–36; P &lt; 0.001, respectively).

Results

A scoring scale for the prediction of PF was developed. BMI ≥22.4 (score: 1), contiguous organ resection (score: 1), and pancreatic thickness ≥11 mm (score: 2) were included in the scoring scale. Patients with a score of 0 never developed PF, whereas PF occurred in all patients with a score of 4.

Conclusions

BMI ≥22.4, contiguous organ resection, and pancreatic thickness ≥11 mm were predictive factors for PF after DP. No patients with BMI &lt;22.4, no contiguous organ resection, and a pancreatic thickness of &lt;11 mm developed PF after DP, indicating that such patients may not require drain placement.

Utility of drain fluid amylase measurement on the first postoperative day after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Early exclusion of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) may facilitate earlier drain removal in selected patients after distal pancreatectomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of first postoperative day drain fluid amylase (DFA1) measurement to predict POPF.

METHODS

Patients in whom DFA1 was measured after distal pancreatectomy were identified from a prospectively maintained database over a five-year period. A cut-off value of DFA1 was derived using ROC analysis, which yielded sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100% for excluding POPF.

RESULTS

DFA1 was available in 53 of 138 (38%) patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy. 19 of 53 patients (36%) developed a pancreatic fistula (Grade A - 15, Grade B - 3, Grade C - 1). Median DFA1 was significantly higher in those who developed a pancreatic fistula (5473; range 613-28,450) compared those without (802; range 57-2350). p < 0.0001. Using ROC analysis, a DFA1 less than 600 excluded pancreatic fistula with a sensitivity of 100% (AUROC of 0.91; SE = 0.04, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

First postoperative day drain fluid amylase measurement may have a role in excluding pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Such patients may be suitable for earlier drain removal.

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.

The impact of surgically placed, intraperitoneal drainage on morbidity and mortality after pancreas resection- A systematic review & meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of intraperitoneal drains in pancreas resection, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed.

METHODS

For this, the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were conducted and Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were screened for relevant studies.

RESULTS

8 retrospective and 3 prospective studies were included in the systematic review. No difference was found between patients with or without intraperitoneal drains in mortality (Risk-ratio/RR 0.74, 95%-Confidence-interval/CI: 0.47-1.18, p = 0.20), in Grade B/C-postoperative pancreatic fistulas/POPF (RR 1.31, 95%-CI: 0.74-2.32, p = 0.35), in intraabdominal abscesses (RR 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.30, p = 0.64), in surgical site infection (RR 1.20, 95%-CI: 0.85-1.70, p = 0.30), in delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.11, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.90, p = 0.71), in postoperative haemorrhages (RR 0.92 95%-CI: 0.63-1.33, p = 0.65), in reoperations (RR 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.87-1.52, p = 0.33), or in radiological reinterventions (RR 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.69-1.31, p = 0.76). The risk for overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.29, p = 0.008), of any POPF (RR 2.15, 95%-CI: 1.52-3.04, p < 0.0001) and of readmissions (RR 1.23, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.45, p = 0.01) was increased for patients with intraperitoneal drain compared to patients without following pancreatic resection.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the controversial results of the recent prospective, randomized trials this meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality but an increased risk for postoperative morbidity, POPF and readmissions of patients with intraperitoneal drains after pancreatic resection. Therefore, the indication for intraperitoneal drains should be critically weighed in patients undergoing pancreatic resections.

Is peritoneal drainage essential after pancreatic surgery?: A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND

With the medical advancement some study put forward that peritoneal drainage is not the necessary after pancreatic surgery; it cannot improve the complications of postoperation even leading to more infection and so on. However, there is no one study can clear and definite whether omitting the drainage after surgery or not.

METHOD

Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis. In the all interest outcomes blow we take the full advantage of RevMan5 to assess, the main measure is odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence, the publication bias are assessed by Egger test and Begg test.

RESULT

The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in no drainage group is much lower than that in routine drainage group (OR = 0.47, I = 43%, P < .00001). The result of the 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this pool are almost accord with the former (OR = 0.57, I = 0%, P = .05). In subgroup the result suggest that the peritoneal drainage can increase the morbidity (OR = 0.71, I = 15%, P = .0002) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but reduce the mortality (OR = 1.92, I = 8%, P = .03) after PD. In distal pancreatectomy (DP) the rate of POPF and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF) is lower without drainage; there is no significant difference in the CR-PF, hospital stay, intra-abdominal abscess, radiologic invention, and the reoperation.

CONCLUSION

In the current meta-analysis, we cannot make a clear conclusion whether to abandon the routine drainage or not, but from the subgroup we can see something is safer than nothing to routine peritoneal drainage. And the patients who underwent DP can attempt to omit the drainage. But it still needs more RCTs to assess the necessity of drainage.

A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial of Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Routine Intraperitoneal Drainage

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that distal pancreatectomy (DP) without intraperitoneal drainage does not affect the frequency of grade 2 or higher grade complications.

BACKGROUND

The use of routine intraperitoneal drains during DP is controversial. Prior to this study, no prospective trial focusing on DP without intraperitoneal drainage has been reported.

METHODS

Patients undergoing DP for all causes at 14 high-volume pancreas centers were preoperatively randomized to placement of a drain or no drain. Complications and their severity were tracked for 60 days and mortality for 90 days. The study was powered to detect a 15% positive or negative difference in the rate of grade 2 or higher grade complications. All data were collected prospectively and source documents were reviewed at the coordinating center to confirm completeness and accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 344 patients underwent DP with (N = 174) and without (N = 170) the use of intraperitoneal drainage. There were no differences between cohorts in demographics, comorbidities, pathology, pancreatic duct size, pancreas texture, or operative technique. There was no difference in the rate of grade 2 or higher grade complications (44% vs. 42%, P = 0.80). There was no difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (18% vs 12%, P = 0.11) or mortality (0% vs 1%, P = 0.24). DP without routine intraperitoneal drainage was associated with a higher incidence of intra-abdominal fluid collection (9% vs 22%, P = 0.0004). There was no difference in the frequency of postoperative imaging, percutaneous drain placement, reoperation, readmission, or quality of life scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective randomized multicenter trial provides evidence that clinical outcomes are comparable in DP with or without intraperitoneal drainage.

Intra-Operative Amylase Concentration in Peri-Pancreatic Fluid Predicts Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy

Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a potentially severe complication following distal pancreatectomy. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive value of intra-operative amylase concentration (IOAC) in peri-pancreatic fluid after distal pancreatectomy for the diagnosis of POPF. Consecutive patients who underwent a distal pancreatectomy between November 2014 and September 2016 were included in the analysis. IOAC was measured, followed by drain fluid analysis for amylase on post-operative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 5. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the discriminative capacity of IOAC as a predictor of POPF. IOAC was measured after distal pancreatectomy in 26 patients. The IOAC correlated significantly with (i) PODs 1, 3, and 5 drain amylase (p < 0.01); (ii) the development of POPF (p < 0.01); and (iii) the Clavien-Dindo grade of surgical complications (p = 0.02). Eighty-three percent of patients with an IOAC > 1000 experienced a post-operative complication (OR 18.3, 95% CI 2.51-103, p < 0.01). ROC curve analysis confirmed the predictive relationship of IOAC and POPF as an excellent test with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI 0.81-0.99, p < 0.01). Measurement of IOAC allows early and accurate categorization of patients at risk for POPF in distal pancreatectomy.

The natural course of pancreatic fistula and fluid collection after distal pancreatectomy: is drain insertion needed?

Purpose

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most common and clinically relevant complications after distal pancreatectomy. Some aspects of POPF management remain controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the natural course of POPF and fluid collection after distal pancreatectomy and to reappraise the necessity of intraoperative abdominal drainage insertion.

Methods

For recent 10 years, 264 distal pancreatectomies were performed at Seoul National University Hospital. Clinicopathologic data including POPF and postoperative fluid collection (POFC), and its treatment modality were reviewed retrospectively. During follow-up, the location, size, and clinical impact of the POFC were determined on the basis of CT images.

Results

Clinically relevant POPFs were identified in 72 patients (27.3%). Therapeutic interventions were performed in 40 patients (55.6%), and conservative management was successful in 32 patients (44.4%). POFC was detected in 191 cases (72.3%) on the first postoperative CT. During follow-up, spontaneous regressions were observed in 119 cases (93.0%). Only thick pancreatic stump increased the risk of clinically relevant POPF (≥17.3 mm, P = 0.002) and the occurrence of POFC (≥16.0 mm, P < 0.001) in multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Intraoperative abdominal drainage insertion could be selectively indwelled in patients with a thickness of pancreas ≥17.3 mm. Since radiologically-proven POFC after distal pancreatecomy showed a 93.0 rate of spontaneous regression, POFC without signs of infection can be safely monitored.

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.

Perioperative application of somatostatin analogs for pancreatic surgery-current status in Germany

BACKGROUND

The most common major complication after pancreatic resection is the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Somatostatin analogs can reduce POPF, but the use of somatostatin analogs is still controversial. The aim of this study was to assess treatment algorithms for pancreatic surgery in Germany with a special focus on the application of somatostatin analogs.

METHODS

A questionnaire evaluating the perioperative management-especially the use of somatostatin analogs-and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery was developed and sent to 209 German hospitals performing >12 pancreatoduodenectomies per year (the requirement for certification as a pancreas center). Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 21.

RESULTS

The final response rate was 77 % (160/209), 14.5 % of hospitals never, 37 % always, and 45 % occasionally apply somatostatin analogs after pancreatic surgery. A (standard) drug of choice was defined in 64 % of hospitals. When standard and occasional usage was analyzed, it appeared that hospitals favored somatostatin (69 %) > sandostatin (50 %) > pasireotide (5 %). A relation between the usage of the different somatostatin analogs and morbidity (POPF) or mortality (84 and 16 % of hospitals reported <5 and 5-10 %, respectively) was not seen. Eighty-seven percent of hospitals were interested in participating in future studies analyzing somatostatin use.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national survey in Germany evaluating the perioperative application of somatostatin analogs for pancreatic surgery. Despite controversial results in the literature, the majority of German pancreas surgeons apply somatostatin analogs perioperatively. The ideal drug to reduce POPF is still unclear. This uncertainty has aroused significant interest and prompted surgeons to participate in future studies in order to elucidate this issue.

Intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: A systematic review

AIM

To study all the aspects of drain management in pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed (MEDLINE) for relevant articles on drain management in pancreatic surgery. The reference lists of relevant studies were screened to retrieve any further studies. We included all articles that reported clinical studies on human subjects with elective pancreatic resection and that compared various strategies of intra-abdominal drain management, such as drain vs no drain, selective drain use, early vs late drain extraction, and the use of different types of drains.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies concerned with drain management in pancreatic surgery involving 4194 patients were selected for this systematic review. We included studies analyzing the outcomes of pancreatic resection with and without intra-abdominal drains, studies comparing early vs late drain removal and studies analyzing different types of drains. The majority of the studies reporting equal or superior results for pancreatic resection without drains were retrospective and observational with significant selection bias. One recent randomized trial reported higher postoperative morbidity and mortality with routine omission of intra-abdominal drains. With respect to the timing of drain removal, all of the included studies reported superior results with early drain removal. Regarding the various types of drains, there is insufficient evidence to determine which type of drain is more suitable following pancreatic resection.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic use of drains remains controversial. When drains are used, early removal is recommended. Further trials comparing types of drains are ongoing.

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

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

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

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

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

[Surgery for pancreatic cancer: Evidence-based surgical strategies]

Pancreatic cancer surgery represents a challenge for surgeons due to its technical complexity, the potential complications that may appear, and ultimately because of its poor survival. The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific evidence regarding the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer in order to help surgeons in the decision making process in the management of these patients .Here we will review such fundamental issues as the need for a biopsy before surgery, the type of pancreatic anastomosis leading to better results, and the need for placement of drains after pancreatic surgery will be discussed.

Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with or without prophylactic drainage.

METHODS: Relevant comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were systemically searched based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with and those without routine drainage. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects or random effects models.

RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and four non-randomized comparative studies recruiting 1728 patients were analyzed. Patients without prophylactic drainage after PD had significantly higher mortality (OR = 2.32, 95%CI: 1.11-4.85; P = 0.02), despite the fact that they were associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.48-0.82; P = 0.00), major complications (OR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.93; P = 0.01) and readmissions (OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.60-0.98; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the rates of pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal abscesses, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation or radiologic-guided drains between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Indiscriminate abandonment of intra-abdominal drainage following PD is associated with greater mortality, but lower complication rates. Future randomized trials should compare routine vs selective drainage.

Routine drainage of the operative bed following elective distal pancreatectomy does not reduce the occurrence of complications

BACKGROUND

Routine drainage of the operative bed following elective pancreatectomy remains controversial. Data specific to distal pancreatectomy (DP) have not been examined in a multi-institutional collaborative.

METHODS

Data from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project were utilized. The impact of drain placement on development of pancreatectomy-related and overall morbidity were analyzed. Propensity scores for drain placement were calculated, and nearest neighbor matching was used to create a matched cohort. Groups were compared using bivariate and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Over 14 months, 761 patients undergoing DP were accrued; 606 were drained. Propensity score matching was possible in 116 patients. Drain and no drain groups were not different with respect to multiple preoperative and operative variables. All pancreatic fistulas (p < 0.01) and overall morbidity (p < 0.05) were more common in patients who received a drain. The placement of a drain did not reduce the incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula nor the need for postoperative procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of drains following elective distal pancreatectomy was associated with a higher overall morbidity and pancreatic fistulas. Drains did not reduce intra-abdominal septic morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas, nor the need for postoperative therapeutic intervention.

The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and benefits of abdominal drains for pancreatic resections have demonstrated inconsistent results. We thus performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analyzed outcomes of pancreatic resections with and without intraoperative placement of drains.

Methods

A database search according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed for studies on pancreatic resection with and without intraperitoneal drainage. The subgroup ‘pancreaticoduodenectomy’ was analyzed separately. The quality of studies was assessed using the MINORS and STROBE criteria. Pooled estimates of morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were calculated using random effects models.

Results

Only two randomized trials were identified. Their results were contradictory. We thus included six further, retrospective studies in the meta-analysis. However, with I² = 68% for any kind of complication, the estimate of inter-study heterogeneity was high. While overall morbidity after any kind of pancreatic resection was lower without drains (p = 0.04), there was no significant difference in mortality rates. In contrast, pooled estimates of outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy demonstrated no differences in morbidity (p = 0.40) but increased rates of intraabdominal abscesses (p = 0.04) and mortality (p = 0.04) without intraperitoneal drainage.

Conclusion

Although drains are associated with slightly increased morbidity for pancreatic resections, routine omission of drains cannot be advocated, especially after pancreaticoduodenectomy. While selective drainage seems reasonable, further efforts to generate more reliable data are questionable because of the current studies and the presumed small differences in outcomes.

Trial registration

Systematic review registration number CRD42014007497.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Evidence-based value of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage is usually indwelled after abdominal operation. This study assessed whether prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage was of value after pancreatic resection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant articles. Data aggregation and analysis were performed using RevMan 5.0 software package.

RESULTS

A randomized controlled trial and seven observational cohort studies including a total of 2690 patients were eligible. The overall and major complication rates and the occurrence of pancreatic fistula in patients with drainage were higher than those without drainage. Prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the need for percutaneous drainage, reoperation and readmission, or with an increase in mortality.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection appears to be unable to improve the postoperative course, and may be associated with more severe and higher rate of complication and increased pancreatic fistula occurrence. There is a serious bias in the criteria to insert drain or not in these retrospective studies. Therefore these results should be confirmed by randomized controlled trial.

Multi-visceral resection of locally advanced extra-pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Multi-visceral resection for extra-pancreatic carcinoma is an uncommon procedure that may offer palliation and potential cure but must be balanced against the risk for morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of patients who had undergone multi-visceral resection of non-pancreatic carcinoma. Factors influencing this procedure included histology, pathologic confirmation of pancreaticoduodenal invasion, tumor clearance, peri-operative morbidity and outcome.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients had en bloc resection including a Whipple procedure (6 patients) and a distal resection (10). Primary pathology mostly originated from the stomach and adenocarcinoma was predominately histological. An R0 resection was made in 13 patients, and actual cancer invasion or abutment into the pancreas or duodenum was confirmed pathologically in 11 patients. Twelve patients suffered from at least one complication. Ten patients required therapeutic intervention for complications. There were 2 in-hospital deaths. The median survival of deceased patients was 7.5 months. Six patients are alive at a median of 21 months, and 4 patients have no evidence of disease to the present.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-visceral resections for extra-pancreatic carcinoma are associated with substantial morbidity that requires therapeutic intervention. Clinical determination of pancreaticoduodenal abutment and achievement of tumor clearance is excellent. Survival with and without recurrent disease is often limited, supporting that it is necessary to cautiously perform the aggressive procedures in consideration of neoadjuvant therapy.

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts by endoscopy and laparoscopy: Our experience with 56 cases

AIM: To investigate the choice of minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC).

METHODS: Clinical data for 56 patients with PPC were retrospectively analyzed. The method of treatment was selected based on etiology, cyst formation time, adjacent organ position, and presence of intracystic infection or not.

RESULTS: Of 34 cases treated by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided gastric or duodenal drainage, 33 were successful and 1 developed stent migration and underwent laparoscopic cyst drainage. Four cases were confirmed to have communication between cyst and the main pancreatic duct by ERCP, and two of them underwent pancreatic duct stent placement (ERPD). Of 9 cases undergoing laparoscopic cyst-jejunum Roux-en-Y anastomosis, 7 were successful and 2 were converted to open surgery. Four cases underwent laparoscopic cyst excision because cyst was too small and could not be distinguished from pancreatic cystadenoma preoperatively, and one patient developed postoperative pancreatic leakage. Four patients underwent CT-guided puncture and external drainage of cyst.

CONCLUSION: Treatments for PPC are diverse, and selection of appropriate treatment based on the patient's situation is key to the treatment of PPC. With the development of endoscopic and laparoscopic technologies, traditional treatment methods will be gradually replaced by minimally invasive treatments.