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

Updating the paradigm of prophylactic abdominal drainage following pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic abdominal drainage (PAD) is considered a routine procedure after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) to prevent and detect severe complications at an early stage. However, the drainage itself may cause adverse consequences. Thus, the optimal strategy of PAD after PD remains controversial.

METHODS

The present paper summarizes the latest research on the strategies of PAD following PD, mainly focusing on 1) the selective placement of PAD, 2) the optimal drainage types, 3) the early removal of drainage (EDR), and 4) novel strategies for PAD management.

RESULTS

Accurate stratifications based on the potential risk factors of clinically relevant-postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) facilitates the selective placement of PAD and the implementation of EDR, with postoperative outcomes superior or similar to routine PAD placement. Both active and passive drainage methods are feasible in most patients after PD, with similar prognostic outcomes. Novel predictive models with accurate, dynamic, and individualized performance further guide the management of PAD and afford a better prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based risk stratification of CR-POPF aids in the management of PAD in patients undergoing PD. Novel dynamic and individualized PAD strategies might be the next hotspot in drain-relevant explorations.

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.

Role of robotic surgery as an element of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Although the current trend in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery (MIS), evidence on the role of MIS as an element of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in PD is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effect of robotic surgery using the ERAS protocol on the outcomes of patients undergoing PD.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 252 patients who underwent open PD (OPD) or robotic PD (RPD) managed using the ERAS protocol between January 2017 and March 2023. Outcomes stratified by the surgical approach were compared. Multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of ERAS items, including robotic surgery, on outcomes after PD.

RESULTS

Of 252 patients, 202 (80.2%) underwent OPD, and 50 (19.2%) underwent RPD. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that perioperative management center support (odds ratio [OR], 2.85; 95% CI, 1.14-7.72; P = .025), robotic surgery (OR, 6.40; 95% CI, 1.94-26.1; P = .002), early solid intake (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.46-5.63; P = .002), and early drain removal (OR, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.04-7.06; P < .001) were significant ERAS items related to early discharge after PD.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that employing the ERAS protocol for OPD and RPD is feasible and safe. Moreover, our results suggested the role of robotic surgery as an element of the ERAS protocol for PD. A combination of ERAS protocols and MIS may be safe and feasible for accelerating postoperative recovery after PD.