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

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.

Adverse Events of Surgical Drain Placement: An Analysis of the NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

Surgical site drainage is important to prevent hematoma, seroma, and abscess formation. However, the placement of drain placement also predispose patients to several postoperative complications. The aim of this study is to clarify the risk-benefit profile of surgical drain placement.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Procedure-Targeted Databases were used to identify patients who underwent hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, and prostatectomy. Patients who underwent each procedure were divided into 2 groups based on intraoperative drain placement. Propensity score-matched cohorts of these 2 groups were compared in terms of postoperative adverse events, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Hepatectomy patients with drains experienced organ space infections (P < .001), sepsis (P < .001), and readmission (P = .021) more often than patients without drains. Patients who underwent pancreatectomy and had drains placed experienced wound dehiscence less frequently than those without drains (P = .04). For hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, nephrectomy, and prostatectomy populations, patients with drains had longer lengths of stay (P < .05). Matched populations across all procedures did not differ in terms of reoperation rate.

DISCUSSION

Prophylactic surgical drain placement may be associated with increased infectious complications and prolonged length of stay. Further studies are needed to elucidate the complete adverse event profile of surgical drains. Nonetheless, outcomes may be improved with better patient selection or advancements in drain technology.

The Prognostic Value of External vs Internal Pancreatic Duct Stents in CR-POPF after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no specific evidence regarding the benefits of external and internal pancreatic duct stents after pancreaticoduodenectomy since pancreatic fistula (grade A) have been redefined with no clinical treatment effect. We aimed to reevaluate the prognostic value of external and internal stents in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula over pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database were specifically searched for pertinent and original articles published before May 2019. The project has been registered in PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42019137579).

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and six nonrandomized controlled trials with a total of 2101 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The use of an external stent resulted in better performance than the use of an internal stent in terms of pancreatic fistula (grade C) (OR 0.58, P = 0.03) but did not reduce the rate of pancreatic fistula (grade B) (OR 0.99, P = 0.94) in all studies. The meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that the use of an external stent approached a level of significance for an increased rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula compared to the use of an internal stent (OR 1.40, P = 0.10) but had no significant effect on pancreatic fistula (grade B) (OR 1.34, P = 0.26) or pancreatic fistula (grade C) (OR 1.68, P = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

Compared with internal stents, the use of external stent might be associated with a lower rate of pancreatic fistula (grade C). More randomized clinical trials are warranted to further explore safety and efficacy of pancreatic duct external stents.

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.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Postoperative Complications Using ACS-NSQIP

BACKGROUND

The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasing. While there is an association between NAT and improved post-pancreatectomy complication rates in limited patient populations, the strength of the relationship and its applicability to a broader and modern pancreatectomy cohort remains unclear.

METHODS

We used the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project to evaluate NAT use for PDAC patients undergoing pancreatectomy. We also used propensity score matching techniques to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), between patients selected for NAT versus upfront surgery.

RESULTS

Patients receiving NAT were more likely to undergo vascular resections (33% vs. 16%, p < 0.001), have perioperative transfusions (18% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and undergo longer procedures. Rates of CR-POPF (6%, vs. 10%, p < 0.001), DGE (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.016), postoperative percutaneous drainage (9% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and SSI (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) were lower for patients selected for NAT. The association of NAT with CR-POPF remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.66) after adjustment for operative technique, gland texture, and need for vascular resection for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PDAC patients undergoing resection, selection for NAT is associated with fewer CR-POPFs, postoperative procedural interventions, and infectious complications, particularly for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. These associations should be considered in discussions of multidisciplinary treatment sequencing for patients with PDAC.

Impact of Drain Placement and Duration on Outcomes After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis

BACKGROUND

The decisions to routinely place a drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy and how long to leave the drain remain controversial due to conflicting evidence and significant variations in clinical practice. This study aims to address those questions by using a large national database and a rigorous analytical model.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2015-2016 Pancreatectomy Participant Use Data Files were used to identify patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 7583). Univariable and multivariable binomial regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders and various preoperative risk factors. Cox regression with drain as a time-dependent covariate, conditional on having a drain placed, was used to examine the association between the drain remaining in place and morbidities.

RESULTS

Of 7583 patients, drains were placed in 6666 (87.9%). Drain placement decreased the risk of developing serious morbidity (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.82), overall morbidity (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.87), and organ space surgical site infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.85). Drain placement did not change the risk of developing a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19). However, for those with drains placed, length of drainage was independently associated with serious morbidity (hazard ratio [HR] 3.06, 95% CI 2.65-3.53), overall morbidity (HR 2.48, 95% CI 2.20-2.80), and organ space surgical site infection (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.23-1.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy may decrease postoperative complications, including serious morbidity, overall morbidity, and organ space surgical site infections; however, length of drainage was associated with increased risk of the previously-named complications. These results support the routine placement and early removal of intraoperative surgical drains in pancreaticoduodenectomy.