Should we still use prophylactic drain in gastrectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Prophylactic drain placement versus non-drainage following gastric cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Gastric cancer remains a significant global health burden and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment, but postoperative complications can negatively impact outcomes. Prophylactic drainage (PD) has been widely used to reduce these complications by facilitating early detection and management of fluid collections. This study evaluates the role of PD following gastric cancer surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases up to January 15, 2025, and analyzed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), both with 95 % confidence intervals (CI), using R version 4.3 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42025650045). Four RCTs involving 728 patients were included. The analysis revealed that PD was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality compared to no drainage (RR: 0.45 [95 % CI: 0.21-0.94]; P = 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the drainage and non-drainage groups in the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 1.23 [95 % CI: 0.49-3.06]; P = 0.66), surgical-site infection (RR: 0.93 [95 % CI: 0.56-1.52]; P = 0.76), pulmonary infection (RR: 0.66 [95 % CI: 0.37-1.18]; P = 0.16), duodenal stump leakage (RR: 1.54 [95 % CI: 0.51-4.71]; P = 0.45), anastomotic leakage (RR: 1.47 [95 % CI: 0.64-3.39]; P = 0.37), or reoperation rates (RR: 0.95 [95 % CI: 0.40-2.27]; P = 0.90). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the length of hospital stay (MD: 0.10 [95 % CI: -0.39 to 0.58]; P = 0.70) or time to the first soft diet (MD: 0.21 [95 % CI: -0.09 to 0.50]; P = 0.17). In conclusion, PD following gastric cancer surgery is associated with a reduced risk of mortality but does not significantly impact the incidence of perioperative complications or recovery metrics. These findings suggest that while PD may offer a survival benefit, it does not appear to reduce common postoperative complications or accelerate recovery.

Hidden messages in fluids: A review of clinical and fundamental perspectives on post-lymph node dissection drains

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in liquid biopsy due to its non-invasive diagnostic value. Postoperative drainage fluid (PDF) is the fluid exudate from the wound site following lymph node dissection. PDF is regarded as a medical waste with no specific clinical significance. Nevertheless, the liquid biopsy of PDF may enable the reuse of this fluid. PDF contains a variety of body fluids, including blood and lymph. PDF contains a variety of biological components, including cytokines, extracellular vesicles (EVs), proteins, nucleic acids, cells and bacteria. These components are indicative of the postoperative inflammatory response, the immune response and the therapeutic response. In this review, we examine the current state of research in the field of liquid biopsy in PDF, elucidating how the analysis of its components can assess the prognosis of patients after lymph node dissection, monitor real-time changes in patient status, and identify new biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets.

Prophylactic Drain Placement and Postoperative Invasive Procedures After Gastrectomy: The Abdominal Drain After Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Evidence suggests that prophylactic abdominal drainage after gastrectomy for cancer may reduce postoperative morbidity and hospital stay but this evidence comes from small studies with a high risk of bias. Further research is needed to determine whether drains safely meet their primary purpose of identifying and managing postoperative intraperitoneal collections without the need for reoperation or additional percutaneous drainage.

Objective

To determine whether avoiding routine abdominal drainage increased postoperative invasive procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Trial was a multicenter prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Enrollment spanned from December 2019 to January 2023. Follow-up evaluations were completed at 30 and 90 days. Eleven centers within the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer, encompassing both academic medical centers and community hospitals, were included. Patients with gastric cancer undergoing subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent were eligible, excluding those younger than 18 years, with serious comorbidities, or undergoing procedure types outside the scope of the study. Of 803 patients assessed for eligibility, 404 were randomized and 390 were included in final analyses.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 into prophylactic drain or no drain arms.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis measuring reoperation or percutaneous drainage within 30 postoperative days. The null hypothesis was rejected when the 90% CI upper limit of the proportion difference did not exceed 3.56%. The calculated sample size to achieve 80% power with a 10% dropout rate was 404 patients (202 in each group). Surgeons and patients were blinded until gastrointestinal reconstruction.

Results

Of the 404 patients randomized 226 (57.8%) were male; the median (IQR) age was 71 (62-78) years. Intraoperative identification of nonresectable disease occurred in 14 patients, leading to their exclusion from the study, leaving 390 patients. In the mITT analysis, 15 patients (7.7%) in the drain group needed reoperation or percutaneous drainage by postoperative day 30 vs 29 (15%) in the no drain group, favoring the drain group (difference, 7.2%; 90% CI, 2.1-12.4; P = .02). Of note, the difference in the primary composite end point was entirely due to a similar difference in reoperation (5.1% in the drain group vs 12.4% in the no drain group; P = .01). Drain-related complications occurred in 4 patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study indicate that refraining from prophylactic drain use after gastrectomy heightened the risk of postoperative invasive procedures, discouraging its avoidance. Future studies identifying high-risk groups could optimize prophylactic drainage decisions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04227951.

Adherence to Guidelines for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment for Gastric Cancer in Italy According to the View of Surgeons and Patients

Background: Despite the strong declining trends in incidence and mortality over the last decades, gastric cancer (GC) is still burdened with high mortality, even in high-income countries. To improve GC prognosis, several guidelines have been increasingly published with indications about the most appropriate GC management. The Italian Society of Digestive System Pathology (SIPAD) and Gastric Cancer Italian Research Group (GIRCG) designed a survey for both surgeons and patients with the purpose of evaluating the degree of application and adherence to guidelines in GC management in Italy. Materials and Methods: Between January and May 2022, a questionnaire has been administered to a sample of Italian surgeons and, in a simplified version, to members of the Patient Association "Vivere Senza Stomaco" (patients surgically treated for GC between 2008 and 2021) to investigate the diagnosis, staging, and treatment issues. Results: The survey has been completed by 125 surgeons and 125 patients. Abdominal CT with gastric hydro-distension before treatment was not widespread in both groups (47% and 42%, respectively). The rate of surgeons stating that they do not usually perform minimally invasive gastrectomy was 15%, but the rate of patients who underwent a minimally invasive approach was 22% (between 2011 and 2022). The percentage of surgeons declaring to perform extended lymphadenectomy (>D2) was 97%, although a limited lymph node dissection rate was observed in about 35% of patients. Conclusions: This survey shows several important discrepancies from surgical attitudes declared by surgeons and real data derived from the reports available to the patients, suggesting heterogeneous management in clinical practice and, thus, a not rigorous adherence to the guidelines.

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol after distal gastrectomy for patients with gastric cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to the ERAS group (EG) and the conventional care group (CG) by stratified randomization according to age and sex. The primary endpoint was adjusted postoperative hospital stay, calculated using discharge criteria developed to evaluate recovery. Nutritional data and quality of life (QoL) (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] C30 and STO22) during the perioperative period were also analyzed.

RESULTS

We enrolled 198 eligible patients with GC for the study between June 2017 and January 2019. A total of 147 patients were finally enrolled in this study (full analysis set) and were assigned to EG (n = 71) and CG (n = 76). First flatus was faster significantly in EG (3.6 ± 1.5 vs 4.1 ± 1.2 days, P = .019). EG showed a faster start of the sips and soft diet than CG (1.3 ± 0.7 vs 3.1 ± 0.4 days, P < .001; 2.4 ± 0.9 vs 5.2 ± 0.7 days, P < .001) according to the protocol. The recorded hospital stay was not significantly different; however, adjusted hospital stay was significantly shorter in EG than in CG (6.5 ± 3.1 vs 7.8 ± 2.1 days, P = .005). There was no difference in morbidity, and no mortality occurred in both groups. EG did not show significant superiority in nutritional outcome and QoL improvement, except for pain scale in EORTC-STO22.

CONCLUSION

The application of the ERAS protocol could reduce the adjusted hospital stay without an increase in postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in long-term nutritional outcome and QoL of the 2 groups.

Prophylactic drainage versus non-drainage following gastric cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic drainage (PD) in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) is not well-established. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between the PD and non-drainage (ND) in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed up to December 2022. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included and meta-analyzed separately. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022371102.

RESULTS

Overall, 7 RCTs (783 patients) and 14 observational studies (4359 patients) were ultimately included. Data from RCTs indicated that patients in the ND group had a lower total complications rate (OR = 0.68; 95%CI:0.47-0.98; P = 0.04; I² = 0%), earlier time to soft diet (MD =  - 0.27; 95%CI: - 0.55 to 0.00; P = 0.05; I² = 0%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD =  - 0.98; 95%CI: - 1.71 to - 0.26; P = 0.007; I² = 40%). While other outcomes including anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, pancreatic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, surgical-site infection, pulmonary infection, need for additional drainage, reoperation rate, readmission rate, and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analyses on observational studies showed good agreement with the pooled results from RCTs, with higher statistical power.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis suggests that routine use of PD may not be necessary and even harmful in GC patients following gastrectomy. However, well-designed RCTs with risk-stratified randomization are still needed to validate the results of our study.

Decision-making and regret in patients with germline CDH1 variants undergoing prophylactic total gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) can eliminate gastric cancer risk and is recommended in carriers of a germline CDH1 pathogenic variant. PTG has established risks and potential life-long morbidity. Decision-making regarding PTG is complex and not well-understood.

METHODS

Individuals with germline CDH1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants who underwent surveillance endoscopy and recommended for PTG were evaluated. Factors associated with decision to pursue PTG (PTG^pos) or not (PTG^neg) were queried. A decision-regret survey was administered to patients who elected PTG.

RESULTS

Decision-making was assessed in 120 patients. PTG^pos patients (63%, 76/120) were younger than PTG^neg (median 45 vs 58 years) and more often had a strong family history of gastric cancer (80.3% vs 34.1%). PTG^pos patients reported decision-making based on family history more often and decided soon after diagnosis (8 vs 27 months) compared with PTG^neg. Negative endoscopic surveillance results were more common among PTG^neg patients. Age >60 years, male sex and longer time to decision were associated with deferring PTG. Strong family history, a family member who died of gastric cancer and carcinoma on endoscopic biopsies were associated with decision to pursue PTG. In the PTG^pos group, 30 patients (43%) reported regret which was associated with occurrence of a postoperative complication and no carcinoma detected on final pathology.

CONCLUSION

The decision to undergo PTG is influenced by family cancer history and surveillance endoscopy results. Regret is associated with surgical complications and pathological absence of cancer. Individual cancer-risk assessment is necessary to improve pre-operative counselling and inform the decision-making process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03030404.

State of the art of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagogastric cancer surgery: the Western experience

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve outcomes. The results of this multimodal and multidisciplinary approach based on actions focused on reducing physiological surgical stress in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods are beneficial in reducing morbidity and hospital stay, without increasing readmissions across different surgical settings. The implementation of ERAS in resection procedures of esophageal and gastric cancer has been challenging due to the complexity of these surgical techniques and the high risk of complications. Despite the limited evidence of ERAS in esophagectomy operations, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have confirmed a reduction of pulmonary complications and hospital stay without increasing readmissions. In gastrectomy operations, the implementation of ERAS reduces the use of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, facilitates early diet, and reduces the length of hospital stay, without increasing complications. There is, however, wide heterogeneity and absence of standardization in the number and definition of the ERAS components. The development of ERAS consensus guidelines including procedure-specific components may reduce this variability. Regardless growing evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS, the adherence rate is still low. The commitment of the multidisciplinary team and leadership is critical in the application and refinement of ERAS protocols in parallel with periodic audits. Pre- and post-habilitation methods are emerging concepts to be incorporated in ERAS protocols.

Current practice on the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy in Italy: the Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADiGe) survey

Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing and ERAS guidelines suggest the benefit of drain avoidance. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Research Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. A 28-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the respondents. Most of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience, or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the participants remove the drain on postoperative day 4-6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain's role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous.

Whether the infracardiac bursa protect right pleura during laparoscopic radical operation of Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction?

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic single-port assisted laparoscopic five-step maneuver inferior mediastinal lymphadenectomy for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG) has superiority in lower mediastinal lymph nodes dissection and digestive tract reconstruction. However, the right pleura was probably ruptured in this surgical technique. The aim of this study was to explore whether the infracardiac bursa (ICB) exposed could protect right pleura.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected and evaluated the clinical and pathological data of patients who underwent five-step maneuver of transthoracic single-port assisted laparoscopic lower mediastinal lymphadenectomy for Siewert II AEG at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between May 2017 and February 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were eligible, including 31 patients in ICB exposed group (group A) and 18 patients in ICB unexposed group (group B). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. 4 patients (12.9%) had right pleura rupture in group A, while 14 patients (77.8%) in group B, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Compared with group B, the extubation time of endotracheal intubation (10.0 (6.0 ~ 12.0) vs. 13.0 (8.0 ~ 15.0) min, p = 0.003) and thoracic drainage tube stay (6.0 (5.0 ~ 7.0) vs. 8.0 (6.0 ~ 10.5) days, p = 0.041) were significantly shorted in the group A. The drainage volume of thorax (351.61 ± 125.00 vs. 418.61 ± 207.86 mL, p = 0.146) was non-significant less and the rate of complications (3.2% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.074) was non-significant lower in group A compared with group B. The postoperative hospital stay (9.0 (8.0,13.0) vs. 9.0 (8.0,12.0) days, p = 0.983) were similar in two groups. No serious adverse event occurred in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICB exposed could protect the right pleura and may promote postoperative recovery, which may be used as an anatomical marker in inferior mediastinal lymphadenectomy.

Framework, component, and implementation of enhanced recovery pathways

The introduction of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has led to a considerable paradigm shift towards evidence-based, multidisciplinary perioperative care. Such pathways are now widely implemented in a variety of surgical specialties, with largely positive results. In this narrative review, we summarize the principles, components and implementation of ERPs, focusing on recent developments in the field. We also discuss ‘special cases’ in ERPs, including: surgery in frail patients; emergency procedures; and patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Does application of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging enhance clinical outcomes in liver resection? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging technology has been widely used in liver resection. However, there has been a lack of strong evidence on whether application of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging enhances clinical outcomes in liver resection. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the latest clinical results of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging-guided hepatectomy (FIGH) and conventional hepatectomy (CH) in liver diseases.

METHODS

Relevant clinical studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline and the Web of Science databases until June 21, 2021. Stata14.0 software was adopted in meta-analysis, in which the pooled effect size was calculated by the random-effects model or the fixed-effects model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to explore sources of heterogeneity. The publication bias was ascertained by egger's test and begg's test. The trim and fill method was used to adjust the occurrence of publication bias.

RESULTS

Overall twelve studies comprising 931 patients were included. Compared to the CH group, the FIGH group has lower complications (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.5238; 95% CI = 0.351-0.780; P = 0.001), shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1.857; 95% CI = -2.806--0.908; P = 0.000). Six of the studies indicated that no perioperative mortality occurred in either group. In overall analysis, there was no statistical difference in the estimated blood loss between the two groups (WMD = -42.509; 95% CI = -87.842 -2.825; P = 0.066), while in subgroup analysis of only literature from Japan or published between 2018 and 2019 years showed the consistent results above (WMD = 5.613; 95% CI = -45.101-56.328; P = 0.828. WMD = 5.582; 95% CI = -34.597-45.762; P = 0.785). No significant differences were found in operative time, blood transfusion rate, R0 resection, 1-year recurrence rate, 2-year-recurrence rate and the 1-year overall survival rate (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that during the liver resection operation, application of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging is a feasible and safe method in the treatment of liver diseases, which enhances some clinical outcomes, such as lower complications and shorter hospital stays.

Utility of Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADiGe) Trial: study protocol for a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic use of abdominal drain in gastrectomy has been questioned in the last 15 years, and a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis on four RCTs concluded that there was no convincing evidence to the routine drain placement in gastrectomy. Nevertheless, the authors evidenced the moderate/low quality of the included studies and highlighted how 3 out of 4 came from Eastern countries. After 2015, only retrospective studies have been published, all with inconsistent results.

METHODS

ADiGe (Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy) Trial is a multicenter prospective randomized non-inferiority trial with a parallel design. It aimed to verify whether avoiding routine use of abdominal drain is burdened with complications, particularly an increase in postoperative invasive procedures. Patients with gastric cancer, scheduled for subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent, are eligible for inclusion, irrespective of previous oncological treatment. The primary composite endpoint is reoperation or percutaneous drainage procedures within 30 postoperative days. The primary analysis will verify whether the incidence of the primary composite endpoint is higher in the experimental arm, avoiding routine drain placement, than control arm, undergoing prophylactic drain placement, in order to falsify or support the null hypothesis of inferiority. Secondary endpoints assessed for superiority are overall morbidity and mortality, Comprehensive Complications Index, incidence and time for diagnosis of anastomotic and duodenal leaks, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. Assuming one-sided alpha of 5%, and cumulative incidence of the primary composite endpoint of 6.4% in the control arm and 4.2% in the experimental one, 364 patients allow to achieve 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin difference between the arm proportions of 3.6%. Considering a 10% drop-out rate, 404 patients are needed. In order to have a balanced percentage between total and subtotal gastrectomy, recruitment will end at 202 patients for each type of gastrectomy. The surgeon and the patient are blinded until the end of the operation, while postoperative course is not blinded to the patient and caregivers.

DISCUSSION

ADiGe Trial could contribute to critically re-evaluate the role of prophylactic drain in gastrectomy, a still widely used procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered (last updated on 29 October 2020) at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04227951 .