Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies

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.

Updates in the management of postoperative pancreatic fistula

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a common and dreaded complication after pancreatic resections and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Over the years, several different strategies have been investigated to prevent and mitigate POPF. However, when a POPF occurs, a consensus on the optimal management strategy of grade B and grade C POPF is still lacking, and the current management strategy is often based on local expertise and driven by patient's condition. Nevertheless, whereas the incidence of POPF after pancreatic surgery has remained stable, the overall mortality related to this complication has decreased over the years. This reflects an improvement in the management of this complication, which has become increasingly conservative. The aim of this review is to provide an updated evidence-based overview on the management strategies of POPF for surgeons and physicians in the clinical practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Validations of new cut-offs for surgical drains management and use of computerized tomography scan after pancreatoduodenectomy: The DALCUT trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most fearful complication after pancreatic surgery and can lead to severe postoperative complications such as surgical site infections, sepsis and bleeding. A previous study which identified cut-offs of drains amylase levels (DALs) determined on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD3, was able to significantly predict POPF, abdominal collections and biliary fistulas, when related to specific findings detected at the abdominal computerized tomography (CT) scan routinely performed on POD3.

AIM

To validate the cut-offs of DALs in POD1 and POD3, established during the previous study, to assess the risk of clinically relevant POPF and confirm the usefulness of abdominal CT scan on POD3 in patients at increased risk of abdominal collection.

METHODS

The DALCUT trial is an interventional prospective study. All patients who will undergo pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for periampullary neoplasms will be considered eligible. All patients will receive clinical staging and, if eligible for surgery, will undergo routine preoperative evaluation. After the PD, daily DALs will be evaluated from POD1. Drains removal and possible requirement of abdominal CT scans in POD3 will be managed on the basis of the outcome of DALs in the first three postoperative days.

RESULTS

This prospective study could validate the role of DALs in the management of surgical drains and in assessing the risk or relevant complications after PD. Drains could be removed in POD3 in case of POD1 DALs < 666 U/L and POD3 DALs < 207 U/L. In case of POD3 DALs ≥ 252, abdominal CT scan will be performed in POD3 to identify abdominal collections ≥ 5 cm. In this latter category of patients, drains could be maintained beyond POD3.

CONCLUSION

The results of this trial will contribute to a better knowledge of POPF and management of surgical drains.

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.

Enhanced recovery after pancreatoduodenectomy-does age have a bearing?

INTRODUCTION

With the proven benefits of enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), their implementation has become a well-accepted clinical practice across the major pancreatic surgery centres of the world. The impact of age on the execution of ERP has remained an area of ambiguity. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of age on the feasibility of various postoperative elements of ERP after PD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted which included 548 patients undergoing PD, managed using ERP, from March 2013 to September 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: < 70 years and ≥ 70 years. Compliance to recovery parameters and postoperative outcomes, including, the incidence of major complications, length of stay (LOS), mortality rates and re-admissions, were compared between the two groups. The impact of age, as a continuous variable, was also studied on the feasibility of each postoperative element.

RESULTS

One-fifth (113/548) of the cohort comprised of patients aged 70 years and above. The 'elderly' patients had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiac disease. They were also more likely to get admitted to the intensive care unit for postoperative monitoring (p < 0.001). The median LOS was 8.0 days in the young and 9.0 days in the elderly (p = 0.253). Rate of major complications (age < 70, n = 37 (8.5%) vs age ≥ 70, n = 7 (6.2%), p = 0.421) and 30-day mortality (age < 70, n = 15 (3.4%) vs age ≥ 70, n = 7 (6.2%), p = 0.185) was not statistically different between the two groups. Compliance of various postoperative elements was similar between the two groups. When studied as a continuous variable, age did not seem to be associated with higher non-compliance of any of the postoperative recovery elements.

CONCLUSION

Age is not a barrier in the safe implementation of postoperative element of ERPs after PD. Enhanced recovery protocols do not need to be modified for the aged.

Relevant Clinical Trials for GI Surgeons: a Review of Recent Findings

Over the last decade, a number of practice-changing clinical trials have been published to guide the management of esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreas, appendiceal, and colorectal pathologies. The following review aims to provide a succinct summary of these important trials that merit further critical assessment by every gastrointestinal surgeon. After each review, per the Editors' request, the authors have provided their humble opinion as to the clinical context and application of the data.

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.

Bile cultures are poor predictors of antibiotic resistance in postoperative infections following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Bile cultures (BC) have routinely been used to guide empiric antibiotic therapy for developing postoperative infections. The ability of BCs to predict sensitivity and resistance patterns (SRP) of site of infection cultures (SOIC) remains controversial. The aim was to assess the concordance of pathogens and SRPs between paired BC/SOICs.

METHODS

Medical records of consecutive patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were reviewed between 2014 and 2018. BC/SOIC pathogens and SRPs were compared on a patient-by-patient basis and concordance (K) was assessed.

RESULTS

Common patient characteristics of 522 included patients were 65-years-old, Caucasian (75.5%), male (54.2%), malignant indication (79.3%), and preoperative biliary stent (59.0%). Overall, 275 (89.6%) BCs matured identifiable isolates with 152 (55.2%) demonstrating polymicrobial growth. Ninety-two (17.6%) SOICs were obtained: 48 and 44 occurred in patients with and without intraoperative BCs. Stents were associated with bacteriobilia (85.7%, K = 0.947, p < 0.001; OR 22.727, p < 0.001), but not postoperative infections (15.2%; K = 0.302, p < 0.001; OR 1.428, p = 0.122). Forty-eight patients demonstrated paired BC/SOICs to evaluate. Pathogenic concordance of this group was 31.1% (K = 0.605, p < 0.001) while SRP concordance of matched pathogens was 46.7% (K = 0.167, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Bile cultures demonstrate poor concordance with the susceptibility/resistance patterns of postoperative infections following pancreaticoduodenectomy and may lead to inappropriate antibiotic therapies.

Extended Experience with a Dynamic, Data-Driven Selective Drain Management Protocol in Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Progressive Risk Stratification for Better Practice

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative drain use for pancreaticoduodenectomy has been practiced in an unconditional, binary manner (placement/no placement). Alternatively, dynamic drain management has been introduced, incorporating the Fistula Risk Score (FRS) and drain fluid amylase (DFA) analysis, to mitigate clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF).

STUDY DESIGN

An extended experience with dynamic drain management was used at a single institution for 400 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies (2014 to 2019). This protocol consists of the following: drains omitted for negligible/low-risk FRS (0 to 2) and drains placed for moderate/high-risk FRS (3 to 10) with early (postoperative day [POD] 3) removal if POD1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L. Adherence to this protocol was prospectively annotated and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall CR-POPF rate was 8.7%, with none occurring in the negligible/low-risk cases. Moderate/high-risk patients manifested an 11.9% CR-POPF rate (n = 35 of 293), which was lower on-protocol (9.5% vs 21%; p = 0.014). After drain placement, POD1 DFA ≥5,000 U/L was a better predictor of CR-POPF than FRS (odds ratio 14.7; 95% CI, 4.3 to 50.3). For POD1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L, early drain removal was associated with fewer CR-POPFs (2.8% vs 23.5%; p < 0.001), and substantiated by multivariable analysis (odds ratio 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.28). Surgeon adherence was inversely related to CR-POPF rate (R = 0.846).

CONCLUSIONS

This extended experience validates a dynamic drain management protocol, providing a model for better drain management and individualized patient care after pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study confirms that drains can be safely omitted from negligible/low-risk patients, and moderate/high-risk patients benefit from early drain removal.

Meta-analysis of modified Blumgart anastomosis and interrupted transpancreatic suture in pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the main cause of surgery related mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Various pancreatoenteric anastomosis methods have been developed to reduce the POPF rate. However, the optimum choice has not been clarified. A literature search is performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing modified Blumgart anastomosis with interrupted transpancreatic suture are included in this meta-analysis. Grade B/C POPF, overall POPF rate and overall sever complication rate (Clavien-Dindo classification IIIa or more) are measured as primary outcomes. Revman 5.3 was used to perform the analysis. Five retrospective comparative studies and 1 randomized controlled trial with a total number of 1409 patients are included in our analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that modified Blumgart anastomosis is associated with lower rate of grade B/C POPF [Odds Ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI),0.32 (0.12-0.84); P = 0.02] and intra-abdominal abscess [OR 95%CI, 0.43 (0.29-0.65); P < 0.01] comparing with interrupted transpancreatic suture. However, this procedure could not reduce overall POPF [OR 95%CI,0.70 (0.34-1.44); P = 0.34] and overall sever complication rate [OR 95%CI,0.91 (0.48-1.72); P = 0.77]. At current level of evidence, modified Blumgart anastomosis is superior to interrupted transpancreatic suture in terms of grade B/C POPF and intra-abdominal abscess. However, high-grade evidence will be necessary to confirm these results.

An update on treatment options for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid organ tumors. Due to the rising incidence, late diagnosis, and limited treatment options, it is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer deaths in high income countries in the next decade. The multidisciplinary treatment of this disease depends on the stage of cancer at diagnosis (resectable, borderline, locally advanced, and metastatic disease), and combines surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and supportive care. The landscape of multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer treatment is changing rapidly, especially in locally advanced disease, and the number of treatment options in metastatic disease, including personalized medicine, innovative targets, immunotherapy, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive T-cell transfer, or stemness inhibitors, will probably expand in the near future. This review summarizes the current literature and provides an overview of how new therapies or new therapeutic strategies (neoadjuvant therapies, conversion surgery) will guide multidisciplinary disease management, future clinical trials, and, hopefully, will increase overall survival.

CT-guided percutaneous catheter drainage of pancreatic postoperative collections

Objective: To examine the clinical characteristics of fluid collections after pancreatic surgery and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CT-guided percutaneous catheter drainage (CT-PCD).Material and methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was carried out. 51 patients enrolled in this study underwent CT-PCD for collections after pancreatic surgery. The clinical and imaging data were collected and analysed.Results: In all 51 cases, CT scans showed that the samples were collected from the upper abdomen in 94.1% (48/51) of the patients. Apparent clinical symptoms before puncture manifested in 88.2% (45/51) of the patients. The average interval between surgery and puncture was 14.3 ± 7.9 days. In 76.4% (39/51) of the patients, the abdominal drainage catheter inserted during surgery was still not removed during CT-PCD. Amylase levels in drainage fluid were more than three times that of serum amylase in 66.7% (24/36) of the patients. The drainage fluid of 37 patients was sent for bacterial cultures; of these, 64.9% (24/37) tested positive. Full recovery after single puncture procedure occurred in 84.3% (43/51) of the patients. The incidence of puncture-related complications was 3.9%.Conclusions: Pancreatic postoperative collections requiring clinical puncture were mostly located in the upper abdomen. CT-PCD is a safe technique with good therapeutic effects in patients with collections.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

Trial registration

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

Analysis of National Presentations of Surgical Case Series Discussions: What Matters to Surgeons?

BACKGROUND

Although the surgical case series is a useful study design for surgical disciplines, elements of its presentation have not been standardized with a widely accepted reporting guideline. Hence, case series may not include all components necessary for surgeons to best interpret their results. We aimed to determine core elements of case series through qualitative analysis of discussions after presentations at national meetings.

METHODS

Case series with accompanying discussions in three high-impact journals from 2010 to 2015 were analyzed with conventional content analysis. All interrogative sentences were selected for analysis and were classified by a redundant iterative process into descriptive categories and subcategories.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-one case series were identified, 56 of which included discussion transcripts. Four hundred seventy six unique interrogatives were classified into 4 categories and 13 subcategories. The main categories identified were "Application of Results to Patient Care," "Clarification of Study Methodology," "Facilitation of Author Insight," and "Request for Additional Study-Specific Data." The most frequent subcategories of inquiry pertained to the changes to current standard of care, clarification of study variables, and subgroup data and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined major themes of inquiry that reflected core elements surgeons use to evaluate case series for relevance and applicability to their own practice. Discussants frequently questioned how the study's results changed the author's standard of care. Specifically encouraging surgical case series authors to comment on changes they made to their practice as a result of their findings would allow the surgical audience to quickly assess potential clinical applicability.

Population-Based Assessment of Selective Drain Placement During Pancreatoduodenectomy Using the Modified Fistula Risk Score

BACKGROUND

Recent studies on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) prevention suggest that omission of perioperative drains is safe for negligible- or low-risk patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). However, this proposed pathway has not been validated in a nationwide cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

The ACS-NSQIP-targeted pancreatectomy database from 2014 to 2016 was queried to identify patients who underwent PD. Using a previously validated modified Fistula Risk Score (mFRS), patients were stratified as negligible/low- or intermediate/high-risk. Multivariate regression models were used to analyze the effect of intraoperative drain placement on relevant perioperative outcomes in both high- and low-risk patients.

RESULTS

Among 6,730 patients undergoing PD, 3,375 (50%) were high-risk; 3,355 (50%) were low-risk. Among high-risk patients, drain placement (n = 3,093, 92%) was associated with a higher rate of POPF (26% vs 16%, p = 0.0003), clinically relevant (CR) POPF (20% vs 12%, p = 0.0015), and extended hospital length of stay (LOS, 9 vs 7 days, p < 0.0001), but decreased serious morbidity (29% vs 35%, p = 0.0330). Similarly, drain placement in low-risk patients (n = 2,785, 83%) was associated with a higher rate of POPF (11% vs 6%, p = 0.0006) and extended LOS (8 vs 7 days, p < 0.0001), yet lower serious morbidity (18% vs 23%, p = 0.0037). On multivariate logistic regression, drain placement was associated with significantly increased odds of CR-POPF and a significantly reduced incidence of serious morbidity among both high-risk (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94, p = 0.0155) and low-risk patients (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89, p = 0.0027).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort, the mFRS was unable to stratify patients relative to the need for selective drain placement during PD. For both high- and low-risk patients, perioperative drain placement was associated with increased rates of POPF, CR-POPF, and extended LOS, but decreased incidence of serious morbidity.

Comparison of pancreatojejunostomy techniques in patients with a soft pancreas: Kakita anastomosis and Blumgart anastomosis

Background

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (PF) is the main cause of operative mortality in patients who undergo pancreatoduodenectomy. Various pancreatoenteric anastomosis techniques have been reported to minimize the postoperative PF rate. However, the optimal method remains unknown. This study was performed to clarify the impact of pancreatojejunostomy on clinically relevant PF (CR-PF) between Blumgart anastomosis and Kakita anastomosis in patients with a soft pancreas.

Methods

In total, 620 consecutive patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy at our institute from January 2010 to December 2016, and 282 patients with a soft pancreas were analyzed (Blumgart anastomosis, n = 110; Kakita anastomosis, n = 176). Short-term outcomes were assessed, and univariate and multivariate analyses of several clinicopathological variables were performed to analyze factors affecting the incidence of CR-PF.

Results

The CR-PF rate was 42.7% (122/286). The CR-PF rate was not significantly different between the Blumgart and Kakita groups (42.7% and 42.6%, respectively; p = 0.985). The morbidity rate (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) was 24.5% (70/286), and the operation-related mortality rate was 0.7% (2/286). In the multivariate analysis, male sex (p = 0.0245) and a body mass index of ≥22 kg/m² (p < 0.0001) were statistically significant risk factors for CR-PF.

Conclusions

The CR-PF rate was not significantly different between patients treated with Kakita versus Blumgart anastomosis.

Efficacy of Triple-Drug Therapy to Prevent Pancreatic Fistulas in Patients With High Drain Amylase Levels After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUNDS

Prior studies have suggested that drain amylase level is a predictive marker for developing pancreatic fistulas (PFs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, means of preventing PF after discovering high drain amylase levels have not been previously established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination drug therapy (using three drugs; gabexate mesilate, octreotide, and carbapenem antibiotics, named as triple-drug therapy [TDT]) regimen in preventing PF for patients with high drain amylase levels on postoperative day (POD) 1 after PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We divided the 183 patients who underwent PD into two groups in accordance with their enrollment in the study: for those enrolled early in the study (early period), TDT was not administered to patients with high drain amylase level; however, for those enrolled later in the study (late period), TDT was administered if drain amylase levels were over 10,000 IU/L on POD 1. We retrospectively compared the incidence of PF between the two groups.

RESULTS

Incidences of PFs were statistically, significantly prevented in the late group (early 17% versus late 6%; P = 0.01). For patients with low levels of drain amylase (<10,000 IU/L), the PF ratio was equivalent between two groups (early 8% versus late 5%; P = 0.56); however, PFs in patients with high drain amylase levels in the late period group were dramatically prevented by TDT administration (early 89% versus late 11%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TDT may be a promising therapy to prevent PFs in patients with high drain amylase levels after PD.

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.

Do Drains Contribute to Pancreatic Fistulae? Analysis of over 5000 Pancreatectomy Patients

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting evidence exists from randomized controlled trials supporting both increased complications/fistulae and improved outcomes with drain placement after pancreatectomy. The objective was to determine drain practice patterns in the USA, and to identify if drain placement was associated with fistula formation.

METHODS

Demographic, perioperative, and patient outcome data were captured from the most recent annual NSQIP pancreatic demonstration project database, including components of the fistula risk score. Significant variables in univariate analysis were entered into adjusted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 5013 pancreatectomy patients, 4343 (87%) underwent drain placement and 18% of patients experienced a pancreatic fistula. When controlled for other factors, drain placement was associated with ducts < 3 mm, soft glands, and blood transfusion within 72 h of surgery. Age, obesity, neoadjuvant radiation, preoperative INR level, and malignant histology lost significance in the adjusted model. Drained patients experienced higher readmission rates (17 vs. 14%; p < 0.05) and increased (20 vs. 8%; p < 0.01) pancreatic fistulae. Fistula was associated with obesity, no neoadjuvant chemotherapy, drain placement, < 3 mm duct diameter, soft gland, and longer operative times. Drain placement remained independently associated with fistula after both distal pancreatectomy (OR = 2.84 (1.70, 4.75); p < 0.01) and pancreatoduodenectomy (OR = 2.29 (1.28, 4.11); p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite randomized controlled clinical trial data supporting no drain placement, drains are currently placed in the vast majority (87%) of pancreatectomy patients from > 100 institutions in the USA, particularly those with soft glands, small ducts, and perioperative blood transfusions. When these factors are controlled for, drain placement remains independently associated with fistulae after both distal and proximal pancreatectomy.

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.

Clinical Factors and Postoperative Impact of Bile Leak After Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

Despite technical advances, bile leak remains a significant complication after hepatectomy. The current study uses a targeted multi-institutional dataset to characterize perioperative factors that are associated with bile leakage after hepatectomy to better understand the impact of bile leak on morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Adult patients in the 2014-2015 ACS NSQIP targeted hepatectomy dataset were linked to the ACS NSQIP PUF dataset. Bivariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the associations between clinical factors and post-hepatectomy bile leak.

RESULTS

Of 6859 patients, 530 (7.7%) had a postoperative bile leak. Proportion of bile leaks was significantly greater in patients after major compared to minor hepatectomy (12.6 vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with bile leak was significantly greater in patients after major hepatectomy who had concomitant enterohepatic reconstruction (31.8 vs. 10.1%, p < 0.001). Postoperative mortality was significantly greater in patients with bile leaks (6.0 vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for significant covariates, bile leak was independently associated with increased risk of postoperative morbidity (OR = 4.55; 95% CI 3.72-5.56; p < 0.001). After adjusting for significant effects of postoperative complications, liver failure, and reoperation (all p<0.001), bile leak was not independently associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality (p = 0.262).

CONCLUSION

Major hepatectomy and enterohepatic biliary reconstruction are associated with significantly greater rates of bile leak after liver resection. Bile leak is independently associated with significant postoperative morbidity. Mitigation of bile leak is critical in reducing morbidity and mortality after liver resection.

What are the predictors that can help identify safe removal of drains following pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

The management of a drain after Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains a controversial issue. Our aim in this study was to identify a safe time for drain removal.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study, of a prospective database, of patients who underwent a PD or DP at two tertiary care institutions.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients underwent PD and DP during the observation period. Seventeen patients developed fistulas (9.4%), with 70.6% (n = 12) developing in soft pancreatic remnants vs. 29.4% (n = 5) in firm pancreatic remnants. Patients with amylase levels greater than 173 U/L on a postoperative day three were 11.46 times more likely to form a fistula compared to those with an amylase level at or below 173 U/L (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Fistula formation is associated with pancreas texture, duct size, and drain amylase following PD or DP. Patients with firm pancreatic texture and large ducts are less likely to develop fistulas than those with soft pancreatic texture and small ducts.

Evaluation of Drain Amylase Level after Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Special Reference to Delayed Pancreatic Fistula

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (PF) is a relatively frequent and occasionally fatal complication of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Several risk factors for PF have been reported, including high drain amylase level (D-AMY). Among the 140 consecutive patients who underwent PD, we analyzed 110 cases with D-AMY measurements over time after PD. According to the D-AMY change, we divided patients into five patterns and defined delayed PF cases. We analyzed clinical characteristics, including serum amylase and D-AMY, and examined the correlation between the period of drain insertion and PF grade. In 15 delayed PF cases, 12 cases were grade B or C, pancreatic cancer was less frequent, pancreatic ducts were smaller, and soft pancreas texture was more commonly observed. The D-AMYon postoperative day (POD) 1 was higher in cases of delayed PF compared with non-PF cases ( P < 0.0001). In 28 cases with drain removal before POD 7, grade B or C PF was not observed afterward. The average D-AMYon POD 1 in cases with drain removal before POD 1 was significantly lower than in delayed PF cases. Although further studies are required to determine the most appropriate timing of drain removal, it is thought that intra-abdominal drains should be removed within seven days of PD in cases without signs of PF. On the other hand, delayed PF should be considered in cases of soft pancreas texture and/or high D-AMY on POD 1, even if D-AMY levels are low on POD 3 or decreasing on POD 5.

Evidence-Based Management of Drains Following Pancreatic Resection: A Systematic Review

Many pancreatic surgeons continue to use intraperitoneal drains, but others have limited or avoided their use, believing this improves outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing outcomes in pancreatectomy without drains, selective drainage, and early drain removal. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and conducted a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing routine intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage, selective drain use, and early versus late drain removal after pancreatectomy, with major complications as the primary outcome. A meta-analysis of the literature assessing routine use of drains was conducted using the random-effects model. A total of 461 articles met search criteria from PubMed (168 articles), Embase (263 articles), and the Cochrane Library (30 articles). After case reports and articles without primary data on complications were excluded, 14 studies were identified for systematic review. Definitive evidence-based recommendations cannot be made regarding the management of drains following pancreatectomy because of limitations in the available literature. Based on available evidence, the most conservative approach, pending further data, is routine placement of a drain and early removal unless the patient's clinical course or drain fluid amylase concentration suggests a developing fistula.

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.

Multicenter, Prospective Trial of Selective Drain Management for Pancreatoduodenectomy Using Risk Stratification

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study sought to prospectively evaluate a drain management protocol for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests value for both selective drain placement and early drain removal for PD. Both strategies have been associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF)-the most common and morbid complication after PD.

METHODS

The protocol was applied to 260 consecutive PDs performed at two institutions over 17 months. Risk for ISGPF CR-POPF was determined intraoperatively using the Fistula Risk Score (FRS); drains were omitted in negligible/low risk patients and drain fluid amylase (DFA) was measured on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) for moderate/high risk patients. Drains were removed early (POD 3) in patients with POD 1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L, whereas patients with POD 1 DFA >5,000 U/L were managed by clinical discretion. Outcomes were compared with a historical cohort (N = 557; 2011-2014).

RESULTS

Fistula risk did not differ between cohorts (median FRS: 4 vs 4; P = 0.933). No CR-POPFs developed in the 70 (26.9%) negligible/low risk patients. Overall CR-POPF rates were significantly lower after protocol implementation (11.2 vs 20.6%, P = 0.001). The protocol cohort also demonstrated lower rates of severe complication, any complication, reoperation, and percutaneous drainage (all P < 0.05). These patients also experienced reduced hospital stay (median: 8 days vs 9 days, P = 0.001). There were no differences between cohorts in the frequency of bile or chyle leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Drains can be safely omitted for one-quarter of PDs. Drain amylase analysis identifies which moderate/high risk patients benefit from early drain removal. This data-driven, risk-stratified approach significantly decreases the occurrence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled PANDRA Trial (ISRCTN04937707)

OBJECTIVE

This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of drains does not increase reintervention rates after pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND

There is considerable uncertainty regarding intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis were randomized to intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage. Primary endpoint was overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention). Secondary endpoints were clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), mortality, morbidity, and hospital stay. The planned sample size was 188 patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 438 patients were randomized. Forty-three patients (9.8%) were excluded because no pancreatic anastomosis was performed, and 395 patients (202 drain, 193 no-drain) were analyzed. Reintervention rates were not inferior in the no-drain group (drain 21.3%, no-drain 16.6%; P = 0.0004). Overall in-hospital mortality (3.0%) was the same in both groups (drain 3.0%, no-drain 3.1%; P = 0.936). Overall surgical morbidity (41.8%) was comparable (P = 0.741). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C: drain 11.9%, no-drain 5.7%; P = 0.030) and fistula-associated complications (drain 26.4%; no drain 13.0%; P = 0.0008) were significantly reduced in the no-drain group. Operation time (P = 0.093), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.174), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.199), biliary leakage (P = 0.382), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.062), burst abdomen (P = 0.480), wound infection (P = 0.758), and hospital stay (P = 0.487) did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Omission of drains was not inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reintervention and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. There is no need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis.

Does intraoperative closed-suction drainage influence the rate of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

BACKGROUND

Although drainage of pancreatic anastomoses after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still debated, it remains recommended, especially in patients with a high risk of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Modalities of drainage of pancreatic anastomoses, especially the use of passive (PAD) or closed-suction (CSD) drains, and their impact on surgical outcomes, have been poorly studied. The aim was to compare CSD versus PAD on surgical outcomes after PD.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 197 consecutive patients who underwent a standardized PD at two tertiary centers between March 2012 and April 2015. Patients with PAD (n = 132) or CSD (n = 65) were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in terms of 30-day overall and severe post-operative morbidity, post-operative hemorrhage, post-operative intra-abdominal fluid collections, 90-day post-operative mortality and mean length of hospital stay. The rate of POPF was significantly increased in the CSD group (47.7% vs. 32.6%; p = 0.04). CSD was associated with an increase of grade A POPF (21.5% vs. 8.3%; p = 0.03), while clinically relevant POPF were not impacted. In patients with grade A POPF, the rate of undrained intra-abdominal fluid collections was increased in the PAD group (46.1% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.18). After multivariate analysis, CSD was an independent factor associated with an increased rate of POPF (OR = 2.43; p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no strongly relevant difference in terms of surgical outcomes between PAD or CSD of pancreatic anastomoses after PD, but CSD may help to decrease the rate of undrained post-operative intra-abdominal collections in some patients. Further randomized, multi-institutional studies are needed.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal drains are frequently used after pancreatic surgery whereas their benefit in other gastrointestinal operations has been questioned. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare abdominal drainage with no drainage after pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science electronic databases were searched systematically to identify RCTs comparing abdominal drainage with no drainage after pancreatic surgery. Two independent reviewers critically appraised the studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to aggregate dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes. Summary effect measures were presented together with their 95 per cent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Some 711 patients from three RCTs were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2·0 per cent in the drain group versus 3·4 per cent after no drainage (OR 0·68, 95 per cent c.i. 0·26 to 1·79; P = 0·43). The morbidity rate was 65·6 per cent in the drain group and 62·0 per cent in the no-drain group (OR 1·17, 0·86 to 1·60; P = 0·31). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas were seen in 11·5 per cent of patients in the drain group and 9·5 per cent in the no-drain group. Reinterventions, intra-abdominal abscesses and duration of hospital stay also showed no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic resection with, or without abdominal drainage results in similar rates of mortality, morbidity and reintervention.

Three hundred and sixty-eight consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies with zero mortality

BACKGROUND

Only a limited number of reports have documented zero mortality in consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomy series. The aim of this study is to review and verify our management aiming to eliminate mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Three hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2002 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. During this period, in order to enhance the safety of pancreaticoduodenectomy, we have used a consistent strategy consisting of early ligation of the inferior pancreatoduodenal artery, mucosal sutureless pancreaticojejunostomy combined with external pancreatic duct stenting, conditional two-stage pancreaticojejunostomy, jejunal decompression using tube jejunostomy, application of an omental flap to cover the stump of the gastroduodenal artery, and careful postoperative drain management.

RESULTS

Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) occurred in 20 patients (5%). Grade A/B/C pancreatic fistula was observed in 49/29/4 patients (13%/8%/1%), respectively. Reoperation and readmission was necessary in five and four patients (1% and 1%), respectively. There was no in-hospital or 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve zero mortality in pancreaticoduodenectomy, it is crucial to incorporate various strategies to minimize the degree of surgical invasiveness and the damage caused by pancreatic fistula with a meticulous approach to perioperative management.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy Can be Performed Safely with Rare Employment of Surgical Drains

Use of drain remains frequent following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) due to concern for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and anastomotic leak development. Despite controversy, a recent randomized trial suggested omitting drainage would result in a large increase in operative mortality. This study sought to comprehensively examine the effects of forgoing drainage in the large cohort of patients undergoing PD. A prospective cohort study of two consecutive groups undergoing PD was constructed. The initial group had operative drains placed in cases subjectively concerning for POPF development; the second cohort did not undergo operative drainage. Outcomes including POPF incidence, need for reintervention, and overall morbidity were examined. A total of 106 patients were evaluated in two consecutive cohorts of 53; in the first group, 30 per cent had operative drains placed; 22.6 per cent developed POPF versus 7.5 per cent of patients in the no drainage group (P = 0.06). Despite this, no significant difference in major morbidity (Clavien ≥3, 20.8% versus 17.0%) or need for procedural reintervention (18.9% versus 15.1%) was observed. A subsequent validation cohort of 237 additional patients where drains were used only in exceptional circumstances was examined. Operative drains were placed in only 3 per cent of patients (n = 7) and 90-day mortality was 1.3 per cent (n = 3). Incidence of POPF was 8.0 per cent and the overall major complication rate was 14.8 per cent. Given such findings, it appears that drainage after PD can be avoided resulting in acceptable operative morbidity and mortality in most cases.

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.

Enhanced Recovery Pathways in Pancreatic Surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols were first introduced to help recovery after colorectal surgery. They have now been applied to multiple surgical specialties, including pancreatic surgery. ERAS protocols in pancreatic surgery have been shown to decrease length of stay and possibly postoperative morbidity.

Surgical Therapy for Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer

Surgery is the key component of treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancers. Pancreatectomy is complex, and there are numerous perioperative and intraoperative factors that are important for achieving optimal outcomes. This article focuses specifically on key aspects of the surgical management of periampullary and pancreatic cancers.

Is there still a need for prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage in elective major gastro-intestinal surgery?

Prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity after gastro-intestinal surgery is widely used. The rationale is that intra-abdominal drainage enhances early detection of complications (gastro-intestinal leakage, hemorrhage, bile leak), prevents collection of fluid or pus, reduces morbidity and mortality, and decreases the duration of hospital stay. However, dogmatic attitudes favoring systematic drain placement should be questioned. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence supporting systematic use of prophylactic abdominal drainage following gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, and rectal resection. Based on this review of the literature: (i) there was no evidence in favor of intra-peritoneal drainage following total or sub-total gastrectomy with respect to morbidity-mortality, nor was it helpful in the diagnosis or management of leakage, however the level of evidence is low, (ii) following pancreatic resection, data are conflicting but, overall, suggest that the absence of drainage is prejudicial, and support the notion that short-term drainage is better than long-term drainage, (iii) after liver resection without hepatico-intestinal anastomosis, high level evidence supports that there is no need for abdominal drainage, and (iv) following rectal resection, data are insufficient to establish recommendations. However, results from the French multicenter randomized controlled trial GRECCAR5 (NCT01269567) should provide new evidence this coming year. Accumulating data support that systematic drainage of the abdominal cavity in digestive surgery is a non-beneficial and obsolete practice, except following pancreatectomy where the consensus appears to indicate the usefulness of short-term drainage. While the level of evidence is high for liver resections, new randomized controlled trials are awaited regarding gastric, pancreatic and rectal surgery.