Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research

TOpClass Class 4 Perineal Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perineal Wound Complication After Proctectomy in Crohn's Patients

BACKGROUND

Nonhealing perineal wounds have been reported to be common after proctectomy for Crohn's disease (CD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of perineal wound healing after proctectomy for CD and assessed the risk factors for nonhealing.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from 2010 to 2023, and articles reporting perineal wound healing rates after proctectomy for CD were included. Data on study characteristics and proportion of healed wounds, and risk factors, were extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled proportion and 95% CIs using the "meta" package in R. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

We identified 501 articles, of which 252 remained after de-duplication. After screening, 4 retrospective cohort studies involving 333 patients were included. Across the 4 studies, the pooled proportion of completely healed perineal wounds at 6 months was 65% (95% CI 52%-80%), and 70% (95% CI 60%-83%) at 12 months. Significant heterogeneity was found between studies (I2 = 86% at 6 months). Three studies examined risk factors for impaired healing after proctectomy. One study identified preoperative perineal sepsis as the only independent factor associated with impaired healing (P = .001) on multivariable analysis. In 1 study, male sex, shorter time from diversion to proctectomy, and higher preoperative C-reactive protein levels were all associated with delayed healing in univariate analysis. Another study found that close rectal dissection was associated with significantly lower healing rates than total mesorectal excision (P = .01). Prior use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors was not associated with wound healing outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed complete perineal healing in only 70% of patients 12 months after proctectomy for CD. This highlights knowledge gaps, including the identification of modifiable risk factors and methods for preventing or as rescue therapy, such as vacuum-assisted closure and flap reconstruction, for nonhealing perineal wounds after proctectomy for CD. Poor perineal wound healing outcomes are likely related to imperfectly understood underlying inflammatory dysregulation and systemically impaired wound healing in patients with CD.

The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Risk Factors for Delayed (>30 Days) Readmission Following Rectal Cancer Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Unplanned, delayed readmissions (>30 ds) following oncologic surgeries can increase mortality and care costs and affect hospital quality indices. However, there is a dearth of literature on rectal cancer surgery. Hence, we aimed to assess the risk factors associated with delayed readmissions following rectal cancer surgery to improve targeted interventions, patient outcomes, and quality indices.

METHODS

For this case-control study, all adult patients in the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database who underwent surgery and subsequent readmission were included. Multivariable logistic regression described the association of factors associated with delayed readmission. Descriptive statistics were used to ascertain the most common causes of readmission.

RESULTS

Of the 1417 patients included in the analysis, 403 (28.4%) patients were readmitted postoperatively. Among these, 101 (25.1%) patients had delayed readmission. The median length of stay for early readmission was significantly longer when compared to delayed readmission (4 versus 2 ds, P < 0.01). American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status score > II [odds ratio = 1.81] was associated with an increased risk of delayed readmissions, while intraoperative pelvic drain placement [odds ratio = 0.57] was associated with a reduced risk. Surgical site infection was the most common cause of delayed (18.4%) and early readmissions (27.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of readmission following surgery for rectal cancer extends beyond the commonly tracked 30 ds, with up to a quarter of readmissions happening more than 30 ds after surgery. Surgical site infection continues to be the leading cause of both early and delayed readmission, underscoring the need to double down on infection prevention bundles.

Reduction Mammaplasty: Closed Suction Drains Do Not Reduce Hematoma or Seroma But Increase Infection Risk

BACKGROUND

While there is mounting evidence that closed suction drains are not necessary, there is a paucity of literature to demonstrate that drains are harmful after breast reduction. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of drains on postoperative seroma, hematoma, and infection, as well as elucidate any risk factors that may be implicated in the development of these complications.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all reduction mammaplasty procedures at our university medical center between 2010-2020. Pedicle type, skin incision, drain utilization, breast excision mass, sternal notch to nipple distance, and inframammary fold to nipple distance were analyzed with postoperative outcomes including hematoma, seroma, infection, dehiscence, nipple necrosis, and fat necrosis.

RESULTS

This study included 944 female patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty. Median age was 39.0 years, median body mass index was 31.9 kg/m2, and median breast mass resected was 742 grams per side. Drain utilization did not significantly reduce postoperative hematoma (P = 0.196), seroma (P = 0.185), nipple necrosis (P = 0.511), or fat necrosis (P = 0.113), but drain utilization significantly increased postoperative surgical site infection (P = 0.011). Patients with breast mass removed over 1500 g had significantly higher risk of hematoma (P = 0.002), fat necrosis (P < 0.001), and nipple necrosis (P < 0.001) compared to patients with less than 1500 g removed. In patients with greater than 1500 g resected, drain utilization did not significantly decrease risk of hematoma (P = 0.086) or seroma (P = 0.497).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast reduction greater than 1500 g per side significantly increased risk of hematoma, nipple necrosis, and fat necrosis. Drain utilization did not demonstrate any advantageous effects, rather it increased risk of infection. Future multicenter study will be needed to confirm these findings across different patient referral networks and practice patterns.

Effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage on postoperative pain in laparoscopic hemicolectomy for colon cancer: a single-center observational study in Korea

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) in laparoscopic hemicolectomy, focusing on assessing postoperative pain outcomes.

Methods

Patients were categorized into two groups: those with and without AD (AD group vs. no-AD group). A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess postoperative pain on each postoperative day (POD). Further, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce intergroup bias.

Results

In total, 204 patients who underwent laparoscopic hemicolectomies by a single surgeon between June 2013 and September 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. After adjusting for IPTW, NRS scores on POD 2 were significantly lower in the no-AD group (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 0.8, p = 0.043). Further examination of postoperative outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in complications between the AD (17.3%) and no-AD (12.4%) groups (p = 0.170). The postoperative length of hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.8 days in the AD group and 6.9 ± 3.0 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.298). Time to first flatus was 3.0 ± 0.9 days in the AD group and 2.7 ± 0.9 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.078). Regarding readmission within 1 month, there were four cases each in the AD (2.3%) and no-AD (1.7%) groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.733).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic hemicolectomy without AD resulted in no significant differences in postoperative clinical outcomes, except for postoperative pain. This finding suggests that prophylactic AD may exacerbate postoperative pain.

Prophylactic Intra-abdominal Drainage is Associated With Lower Postoperative Complications in Patients With Crohn's Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic intraoperative drains have been shown not superior for patients underwent intestinal surgery. However, for patients with Crohn's disease (CD), this needs further exploration.

METHODS

In this pilot study, CD patients were randomly assigned to drain (n = 50) and no-drain (n = 50) groups. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative prolonged ileus (PPOI). The secondary endpoints were postoperative abdominal ascites, postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels.

RESULTS

The incidences of PPOI and postoperative abdominal ascites were significantly lower in the drain group (12% vs 44%; 0% vs 24%, both P < .05). Postoperative SIRS incidence and CRP levels were significantly increased in the no-drain group [36% vs 10%; 54.9 vs 34.3 mg/L, both P < .05]. In multivariate analysis, prophylactic drainage was the independent protective factor for PPOI and postoperative LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic drainage may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in CD patients.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery in Ovarian Cancer: Drainage, Stoma Utility and Risk Factors

Objective: to evaluate the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), risk factors and utility of drainage and stoma in patients undergoing intestinal surgery for ovarian cancer in a single institution and in a review of the literature. Methods: retrospective study that includes consecutive patients undergoing debulking surgery with en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy for ovarian cancer between 1 November 2011 and 31 December 2021. Data regarding patient and tumour characteristics, surgical procedure, hospitalisation, complications and follow-up were recorded and analysed. The PubMed database was explored for recent publications on this topic. Results: Seventy-five patients were enrolled in the study. All anastomoses were performed at a distance of >6 cm from the anal margin, with negative leak tests and tension-free anastomosis. Diverting stoma were performed in just three patients (4%). At least one perianastomotic pelvic drain was positioned in 71 patients (94.7%) and was removed on average on postoperative day 7. Four patients (5.3%) experienced AL. In all cases, the drain content was not the only sign of complication, as the clinical signs were also highly suggestive. Just one patient received conservative treatment. Average postoperative hospitalisation was 14.6 days (SD: ±9.7). There were no deaths at 30 and 60 days after surgery. Between the AL and non-AL groups, statistically significant differences were observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, length of the intestinal resection and fitness for chemotherapy at 30 days. In ovarian cancer, rectosigmoid resection is a standardised procedure with comparable results for AL, and risk factors for AL are discretely homogeneous. What is neither homogeneous nor standardised according to the literature is the use of stomas and/or drains. Conclusion: use in the future of protective stoma and/or intra-abdominal drains is to be explored in selected and standardised situations to verify their preventive role.

Effect of pelvic drain displacement on anastomotic leakage-related morbidity after rectal cancer surgery

Purpose

Drain insertion after proctectomy is common in clinical practice, although the effectiveness of drains has been questioned. However, drains are commonly displaced after surgery. We hypothesized that drain displacement is associated with clinical outcomes and aimed to assess differences in clinical outcomes, such as overall morbidity, including anastomotic leakage (AL), reintervention rates, length of hospital stay, and mortality rates, between patients who experienced displaced drains and those who did not.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy at a single institution between January 2015 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients who experienced displaced drains and those who did not. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of reintervention in patients with AL. The secondary endpoints were overall morbidity rates, AL rates, length of hospital stay, and mortality within 30 days.

Results

Among 248 patients who underwent proctectomy, 93 (37.5%) experienced displaced drains. A higher proportion of patients who experienced displaced drains required reintervention due to AL than those who did not experience displaced drains (odds ratio, 3.61; 95% confidential interval, 1.20–10.93; p = 0.016). However, no significant difference was found in the overall morbidity rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay between the groups.

Conclusion

Drain displacement does not worsen outcomes such as overall morbidity rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay after proctectomy but is associated with an increase in the need for reintervention in patients with AL.

Drain Placement After Uncomplicated Hepatic Resection Increases Severe Postoperative Complication Rate: A Japanese Multi-institutional Randomized Controlled Trial (ND-trial)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical impact of a no-drain policy after hepatic resection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous randomized controlled trials addressing no-drain policy after hepatic resection seem inconclusive because they did not adopt appropriate study design to validate its true clinical impact.

METHODS

This unblinded, randomized controlled trial was done at 7 Japanese institutions. Patients undergoing hepatic resection without biliary reconstruction were randomized to either D group or ND group. When the risk of postoperative bile leakage or hemorrhage were considered high, the patients were excluded during the operation. Primary endpoint was the postoperative complication of C-D grade 3 or higher within 90 postoperative days. A noninferiority of ND group to D group was assessed, and if it was confirmed, a superiority was assessed.

RESULTS

Between May 2015 and July 2017, a total of 400 patients were finally included in the per-protocol set analysis: 199 patients in D group and 201 patients in ND group. Intraoperatively, 37 patients were excluded from the final enrollment because of high risk of bile leakage or hemorrhage. Postoperative complication rate of C-D grade 3 or higher was 8.0% (16/199) in the D group and 2.5% (5/201) in the ND group. The risk difference was -5.5% (95% confidence interval: -9.9% to -1.2%) and fulfilled the prescribed noninferiority margin of 4%. No postoperative mortality was experienced in both groups. Bile leakage was diagnosed in 8.0% (16/199) of the D group and none in the ND group (P < 0.001). In none of the subgroups classified based on 8 potentially relevant factors, drain placement was favored in terms of C-D grade 3 or higher complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Drains should not be placed after uncomplicated hepatic resections.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

The Dilemma of Drains after Pancreatoduodenectomy: Still an Issue?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Routine drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy is a controversial issue. In this article, we present and discuss the current evidence on abdominal drains in pancreatic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review of the pertinent English-language literature.

RESULTS

There is a growing body of evidence showing a lack of benefit of prophylactic drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Randomized trials have reported similar outcomes with or without routine drains. If drains were used, early removal was found to be superior to late removal in patients with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Consequently, criteria for early drain removal have been developed based on the measurement of drain amylase levels. On the contrary, there exists a subgroup of patients where drains may have a role. In patients with high risk of pancreatic fistula formation, such as those having a soft pancreatic texture, small pancreatic duct and high body mass index, the placement of drains may give sentinel information about future clinical deterioration. The drain may thus help reduce failure-to-rescue rates.

CONCLUSION

Despite much research, there are many unanswered questions regarding drains in pancreatic surgery. It is evident that routine drainage should be abandoned for a more selective strategy. Furthermore, what is needed is a postoperative warning score that early on can identify patients at risk of a pancreatic fistula, without the routine placement of drains.

Drainage smell and peritonitis are efficient indicators of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

Objective

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a frequent complication after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection (LRCR). The main objective of the present study was to identify accurate indicators of AL after LRCR.

Methods

A retrospective case-control study was performed of 185 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer between March 2012 and February 2017 at Beijing Friendship Hospital. Potential indicators of AL were examined via univariate and multivariate analyses. The performance of multivariate analysis was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

The overall AL rate was 17.84%. Multivariate analysis identified drainage smell (odds ratio [OR = 35.318, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.114 to 175.338) and peritonitis [OR = 17.475, 95% CI = 1.540 to 198.318) as independent indicators of AL. The area under the ROC curve was 0.720 (95% CI = 0.606 to 0.835).

Conclusion

Drainage smell and peritonitis could be reliable and accurate indicators of AL after LRCR.

[Still no evidence for drains in bariatric surgery]

BACKGROUND

Registry data show that placement of a drain during bariatric surgery is still the normal practice in many surgical departments. Retrospective studies and a review article could show that the routine placement of a drain in bariatric surgery is useless and also potentially dangerous. Due to the lack of randomized controlled studies there is insufficient evidence on this topic in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

In order to further question the use of drains in bariatric interventions, the prospective in-house databank of patients who received a gastric sleeve (SG) or a Roux-en‑Y gastric bypass (RYGB) between January 2010 and June 2016 was retrospectively evaluated.

SETTING

A German university hospital.

METHODS

During the investigation period a total of 361 operations (219 gastric bypasses and 142 gastric sleeve operations) were carried out. A change in the internal treatment pathway with respect to the placement of drains in 2013 led to the formation of two groups: one where a drain was routinely placed in operations (n = 166) and a second group where a drain was not routinely placed (n = 195). The demographic data were statistically adjusted between the two groups using multiple regression analysis. The results of the operation and the 30-day morbidity were compared. Complications were evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

In the group with no drain, complications occurred in seven patients. In the group with drainage there were 6 complications. The insufficiency and reoperation rates were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. The average postoperative hospital stay was 1.3 days longer in patients with a drain. Multivariate analysis showed that the placement of a drain was the greatest risk factor for a longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Placement of a drain during bariatric interventions should only be considered on an individual basis. The routine placement should be discouraged.

A Modified Side-to-Side Anastomosis Using a Circular Stapler Reduces Anastomotic Leakage in Colonic Surgery

Background. Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the serious complications after colonic surgery. Method. A prospective interventional study to assess a modified technique of creating the ileocolic, colic-colic, and colorectal side-to-side anastomoses using a circular stapler. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this technique in the reduction of AL. Computed tomography scan was performed when AL was clinically suspected. Result. One hundred and forty-five patients who underwent colonic resection between January 2015 and August 2018 were included. One patient underwent surgery for severe inflammatory bowel disease, and the others underwent surgery for colonic cancer. The procedures were open surgeries, including right hemicolectomy (n = 79 [54.5%]), left hemicolectomy (n = 29 [20%]), sigmoidectomy (n = 30 [20.7%]), and transverse colectomy (n = 7 [4.8%]). In 23 patients with ascending colonic obstruction, emergency right colectomy with primary anastomosis was performed. Two surgeons performed the operations (52.4% and 47.6%, respectively), and intraoperative blood loss was 50 to 100 mL. The operative time was 160 to 240 minutes. There was no mortality postoperatively, and 26 (17.9%) patients developed complications. One patient who underwent transverse colonic cancer resection developed a clinical AL (0.7%). After ileostomy, the patient was discharged with no other serious complication. The median of postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range = 5-18 days). Conclusion. This modified technique is a safe and efficient method for anastomotic configuration in colonic surgery.

Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinically evident Anastomotic Leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether Prophylactic Drainage (PD) after colorectal anastomoses confers any advantage in the prevention and management of AL.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients with Drained (D) or Undrained (UD) colorectal anastomoses performed for any cause.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials comparing D and UD patients undergoing colorectal resections with primary anastomosis were included for quantitative synthesis. In total, 1120 patients were allocated to group D (n = 566) or group UD (n = 554). The clinical AL rate was 8.5% in the D group and 7.6% in the UD group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.57). Rates of radiological AL (D: 4.2% versus UD: 5.6%; P = 0.42), mortality (D: 3.6% versus UD: 4.4%; P = 0.63), overall morbidity (D: 16.6% versus UD: 18.6%, P = 0.38), wound infection (D: 5.4% versus UD: 5.3%, P = 0.95), pelvic sepsis (D: 9.7% versus UD: 10.5%, P = 0.75), postoperative bowel obstruction (D: 9.9% versus UD: 6.9%, P = 0.07), and reintervention for abdominal complication (D: 9.1% versus UD: 7.9%, P = 0.48) were equivalent between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the value of PD following colorectal anastomoses does not support the routine use of prophylactic drains.

Non-placement versus placement of a drainage tube around the cervical anastomosis in McKeown esophagectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy remains the mainstay of treatment for localized esophageal cancer. Currently, transthoracic and abdominal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (McKeown esophagectomy) is a frequently used technique in Japan. However, cervical anastomosis is still an invasive procedure with a high incidence of anastomotic leakage. The use of a drainage tube to treat anastomotic leakage is effective, but the routine placement of a closed suction drain around the anastomosis at the end of the operation remains controversial. The objective of this study is to evaluate the postoperative anastomotic leakage rate, duration to oral intake, hospital stay, and analgesic use with nonplacement of a cervical drainage tube as an alternative to placement of a cervical drainage tube.

METHODS

This is an investigator-initiated, investigator-driven, open-label, randomized controlled parallel-group, noninferiority trial. All adult patients (aged ≥20 and ≤85 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-3 N0-3 M0) squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous cell carcinoma, or basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus, and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1, or 2 are assessed for eligibility. Patients (n = 110) with resectable esophageal cancer who provide informed consent in the outpatient clinic are randomized to either nonplacement of a cervical drainage tube (n = 55) or placement of a cervical drainage tube (n = 55). The primary outcome is the percentage of Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher anastomotic leakage.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial comparing nonplacement versus placement of a cervical drainage tube during McKeown esophagectomy with regards to the usefulness of a drain for anastomotic leakage. If our hypothesis is correct, nonplacement of a cervical drainage tube will be recommended because it is associated with a similar anastomotic leakage rate but less pain than placement of a cervical drainage tube.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR, 000031244. Registered on 1 May 2018.

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.

Dislocation of intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: results of a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

The use of intra-abdominal drains after major surgical procedures represents a well-established but controversial practice. No data are available regarding both the occurrence and the potential impact of their postoperative accidental dislocation. The aim of this study is to assess the actual rate of dislocation of intra-abdominal drains postoperatively and to evaluate its clinical impact.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study using major pancreatic surgery as a model. Ninety-one consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) underwent low-dose, non-enhanced computed tomography (LDCT) on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3 in a blinded fashion to assess the position of drains. We compared the outcomes of patients with dislocated and correctly placed drains.

RESULTS

Overall, drains were dislocated in 30 patients (33%), without differences between PD and DP. Most of dislocations were already present on POD 1 (77%). Postoperative complications occurred in 57% of patients, and the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 27%. The dislocated cohort had lesser morbidity (40% vs. 66%; relative risk (RR), 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.86; P = 0.020), and the rate of POPF (3% vs. 39%, respectively; RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.42; P < 0.001). After PD, patients with dislocated drains had a shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 20 days; P = 0.015). No significant differences in terms of need for percutaneous drainage procedures, abdominal collections, or grade C POPFs were found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation of intra-abdominal drains is an early and frequent event after major pancreatic resection. Its occurrence might protect against the negative effects of maintaining drainage, eventually leading to better postoperative outcomes. This data reinforces the knowledge that surgical drains might be detrimental in selected cases.

Nondrainage after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis Does Not Increase the Postoperative Morbidity

Background

It is now established that prophylactic drainage is not needed after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for chronic calculous cholecystitis. However, the benefit of drains versus their potential harm for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) following laparoscopic LC has been questioned. Therefore, we conducted a comparative study to assess the need for drainage.

Methods

Between January 2014 and October 2016, 212 patients with ACC undergoing LC undergo either drainage (n= 106) or no drainage (n= 106). The primary end points were the number of patients with postoperative drain-related complications, early and late Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, and hospital stay. Secondary end points included estimated blood loss, postoperative recovery, analgesia requirement, and cosmetic satisfaction result.

Results

There was no bile duct injury and mortality in both groups. The overall complication rate was 12.5% with no significant difference between those with or without drainage (P=0.16). Normal activity resumption was significantly faster and the postoperative hospital stay was slightly shorter in the nondrainage group (P =0.03 and P= 0.04, respectively). The early VAS score in the drainage group was significantly higher (p< 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative hematology test, late VAS score, and patient satisfaction of cosmetic outcome.

Conclusion

Routine drainage for patients with ACC after LC may not be justified with similar drain-related complications compared with nondrainage group.

Compliance with enhanced recovery protocols in elderly patients undergoing colorectal resection

Introduction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is associated with reduced length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes in colorectal surgery. It is unclear whether ERAS can be safely implemented in elderly patients undergoing complex colorectal resections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ERAS in patients of all ages undergoing colorectal surgery. Methods A prospective database of a consecutive series of patients undergoing colorectal resections with ERAS between August 2012 and December 2014 was evaluated. Patients were divided into four age groups. Outcomes studied were compliance with ERAS elements, LOS, morbidity and mortality. Results Of the 294 patients in the study cohort, 79 were <60 years, 81 were 60-69 years, 86 were 70-79 years and 48 were ≥80 years of age. There was no significant difference between age groups in compliance with ERAS elements. Age was not predictive of delayed discharge (LOS >6 days) or morbidity. Factors that were predictive of delayed discharge on multivariate analysis were open surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23, p=0.003), conversion to open surgery (OR: 3.23, p=0.017), stoma formation (OR: 2.10, p=0.019) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 4.12, p=0.038). Factors predictive of morbidity on multivariate analysis comprised conversion to open surgery (OR: 7.72, p=0.004), high creatinine (OR: 1.03 per unit increase in creatinine, p=0.008) and stoma education (OR: 0.31, p=0.030). Conclusions ERAS can be successfully implemented in older patients. There was equal compliance with the ERAS programme across the four age groups and no significant effect of age on LOS or morbidity.

Pelvic Drain After Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer in Patients With Diverting Stoma

BACKGROUND

This study is intended to assess whether the use of pelvic drain reduces incidence of pelvic sepsis in the era of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 200 of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer with diverting stoma were analyzed.

RESULTS

Pelvic sepsis occurred in 14 of 110 patients (12.7%) in the drain group and in 9 of 90 patients (10.0%) in the no drain group (P=0.548). Furthermore, there were no differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, time to diagnosis of pelvic sepsis, and type of treatments for pelvic sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic pelvic drain use after laparoscopic LAR in patients with diverting stoma does not reduce incidence of pelvic sepsis. Routine use of pelvic drain is not recommended. This study was registered at UMIN (Registration Number: UMIN000026076).

[Evidence-based ways of colorectal anastomotic complications prevention in the setting of digestive deep endometriosis resection: CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

Management of deep pelvic and digestive endometriosis can lead to colorectal resection and anastomosis. Colorectal anastomosis carries risks for dreaded infectious and functional morbidity. The aim of the study was to establish, regarding the published data, the role of the three most common used surgical techniques to prevent such complications: pelvic drainage, diverting stoma, epiplooplasty. Even if many studies and articles have focused on colorectal anastomotic leakage prevention in rectal cancer surgery data regarding this topic in the setting of endometriosis where lacking. Due to major differences between the two situations, patients, diseases the use of the conclusions from the literature have to be taken with caution. In 4 randomized controlled trials the usefulness of systematic postoperative pelvic drainage hasn't been demonstrated. As this practice is not systematically recommended in cancer surgery, its interest is not demonstrated after colorectal resection for endometriosis. There is a heavy existing literature supporting systematic diverting stoma creation after low colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer. Keeping in mind the important differences between the two situations, the conclusions cannot be directly extrapolated. In endometriosis surgery after low rectal resection, stoma creation must be discussed and the patient must be informed and educated about this possibility. Even if widely used there is no data supporting the role of epiplooplasty in colorectal anastomotic complication prevention? The place for epiplooplasty in preventing rectovaginal fistula occurrence in case of concomitant resection hasn't been studied.

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Use of Suction Drains Following Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most feared complications of rectal resections. The role of drains in limiting this occurrence or facilitating its early recognition is still poorly defined. We aimed to study whether the presence of prophylactic pelvic drains affects the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing drained with undrained anastomoses following rectal surgery. We evaluated possible differences on the relative incidences of anastomotic leakage, pelvic collection or sepsis, bowel obstruction, reoperation rate, and overall mortality. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed with RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 760 patients from 4 randomized controlled studies were considered eligible for data extraction. The use of drains did not show any advantage in terms of anastomotic leak (OR 0.99), pelvic complications (OR 0.87), reintervention (OR 0.84) and mortality. Contrariwise, the incidence of postoperative bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the drained group (OR 1.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine utilization of pelvic drains does not confer any significant advantage in the prevention of postoperative complications after rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis. Moreover, a higher risk of postoperative bowel obstruction can be of concern.

Transanal Inspection and Management of Low Colorectal Anastomosis Performed With a New Technique: the TICRANT Study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most serious complications after rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter interventional study to assess a newly described technique of creating the colorectal and coloanal anastomosis. The primary outcome was to access the safety and efficacy of this technique in the reduction of anastomotic leak.

RESULT

Fifty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent low or ultra-low anterior resection were included in the study. There were 35 males and 18 females, with a median age of 68 years (range = 49-89 years). The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm (range = 4-12 cm), and the median body mass index was 24 kg/m2 (range = 20-35 kg/m2). Thirty patients underwent open, 16 laparoscopic, and 7 robotic surgeries. Multiple firing (2-charges) was required in 30 patients to obtain a complete rectal division. Forty-five patients had colorectal anastomosis, and 8 patients had coloanal anastomosis. The protective ileostomy was created in 40 patients at the time of initial surgery. There was no mortality in the first 30 days postoperatively, and only 10 (19%) patients developed complications. There were 3 anastomotic leakages (6%); 2 of them were subclinical with ileostomy created at initial operation and both were treated conservatively with transanal drainage and intravenous antibiotics. One patient required reoperation and ileostomy. The median length of hospital stay was 10 days (range = 4-20 days).

CONCLUSION

Our technique is a safe and efficient method of creation of colorectal anastomosis. It is also a universal method that can be used in open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries.

To Drain or Not to Drain Infraperitoneal Anastomosis After Rectal Excision for Cancer: The GRECCAR 5 Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of pelvic drainage after rectal surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND

Pelvic sepsis is one of the major complications after rectal excision for rectal cancer. Although many studies have confirmed infectiveness of drainage after colectomy, there is still a controversy after rectal surgery.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized trial with 2 parallel arms (drain vs no drain) was performed between 2011 and 2014. Primary endpoint was postoperative pelvic sepsis within 30 postoperative days, including anastomotic leakage, pelvic abscess, and peritonitis. Secondary endpoints were overall morbidity and mortality, rate of reoperation, length of hospital stay, and rate of stoma closure at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 494 patients were randomized, 25 did not meet the criteria and 469 were analyzed: 236 with drain and 233 without. The anastomotic height was 3.5 ± 1.9 cm from the anal verge. The rate of pelvic sepsis was 17.1% (80/469) and was similar between drain and no drain: 16.1% versus 18.0% (P = 0.58). There was no difference of surgical morbidity (18.7% vs 25.3%; P = 0.83), rate of reoperation (16.6% vs 21.0%; P = 0.22), length of hospital stay (12.2 vs 12.2; P = 0.99) and rate of stoma closure (80.1% vs 77.3%; P = 0.53) between groups. Absence of colonic pouch was the only independent factor of pelvic sepsis (odds ratio = 1.757; 95% confidence interval 1.078-2.864; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized trial suggests that the use of a pelvic drain after rectal excision for rectal cancer did not confer any benefit to the patient.

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.

To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, many surgeons place a prophylactic drain in the abdominal or pelvic cavity after colorectal anastomosis as a conventional treatment. However, some trials have demonstrated that this procedure may not be beneficial to the patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic placement of a drain in colorectal anastomosis can reduce postoperative complications.

METHODS

We systematically searched all the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine use of drainage to non-drainage regimes after colorectal anastomosis, using the terms "colorectal" or "colon/colonic" or "rectum/rectal" and "anastomo*" and "drain or drainage." Reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Primary outcome measures were clinical and radiological anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, wound infection, re-operation, and respiratory complications. We assessed the eligible studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two authors independently extracted data.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included (1803 patients in total, 939 patients in the drain group and 864 patients in the no drain group). Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant differences between the drain group and the no drain group in (1) overall anastomotic leakage (relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.62, P = 0.47), (2) clinical anastomotic leakage (RR = 1.39, 95 % CI 0.80-2.39, P = 0.24), (3) radiologic anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.56-1.51, P = 0.74), (4) mortality (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI 0.57-1.55, P = 0.81), (5) wound infection (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI 0.84-1.69, P = 0.34), (6) re-operation (RR = 1.18, 95 % CI 0.75-1.85, P = 0.47), and (7) respiratory complications (RR = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.55-1.23, P = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of prophylactic drainage in colorectal anastomosis does not benefit in decreasing postoperative complications.

Intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: A systematic review

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Impact of abdominal drainage systems on postoperative complication rates following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Depending on the extent of surgery, coagulation status and the number of anastomoses, drains are routinely used during liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare different drain types with regard to abdominal complication rates.

METHODS

All consecutive full-size orthotopic liver transplantations (LTX) performed over a 7-year period were included in this retrospective analysis. Abdominal drain groups were divided into open-circuit drains and closed-circuit drains. Data are reported as total number (%) or median (range); for all comparisons a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 256 LTX [age 56.89 (0.30-75.21) years; MELD 14.5 (7-40)] was included; 56 (21.8 %) patients received an open-circuit Easy Flow Drain (Group 1) and 200 (78.2 %) a closed-circuit Robinson Drainage System (Group 2). For Groups 1 and 2, overall infection rates were 78.6 and 56 % (p = 0.001), abdominal infection rates 50.82 and 21.92 % (p = 0.001), yeast infection rates 37 and 23 % (p = 0.02), abdominal bleeding rates 26.78 and 17 % (p = 0.07), biliary complication rates 14.28 and 13.5 % (p = 0.51), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective series, open-circuit drains were associated with more abdominal complications, mainly due to intraabdominal infections, than were closed-circuit drains.

[Cecal perforation secondary to surgical drainage. A case report]

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains in abdominal surgery is still today controversial. While accepting their role in certain circumstances, their systematic use advocated by other schools, is not fully accepted. We present a case of secondary blind drilling drainage tube perineum following an abdominoperineal amputation of the rectum that forced a surgical repair in a neoplastic patient

CLINICAL CASE

This is a patient who underwent abdomino perineal resection for rectal neoplasia. It was decided to leave a silicone-type drain tube for perineum and in late postoperative he presented cecum perforation due to traumatic introduction thereof into the cecal light, which forced his reoperation and surgical repair.

DISCUSSION

There is a tendency to use less and less drains in abdominal surgery, although there are certain occasions when it becomes inevitable. On the other hand it entails morbidity associated with its use that significantly complicates and delays the recovery of the patient. It is accepted that is not useful to prevent the occurrence of fistulas, although it contributes to its early detection.

CONCLUSIONS

The cecal perforation due to drain is a rare complication which must always be taken into account, and that perhaps could be avoided by using soft and less rigid drains.

To Drain or Not to Drain after Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Prophylactic drainage of abdominal cavity after GI surgery has been widely practiced. The most important signal function of prophylactic drain is to detect early complications. But the same drains could be the cause of some of the complications. Although there is a considerable theoretical and practical evidences in favor of drainage, the dispute about "to drain or not to drain" the peritoneal cavity after elective colorectal surgery remains open. Unfortunately, the principle of drainage is not based on any scientific data. During the last three decades, surgeons have made efforts to investigate the value of prophylactic drainage after colorectal surgery. However, the results of trials are contradictory due to lack of quality and/or statistical power and therefore do not provide an answer to the clinical question. A systematic review of studies suggests that there is insufficient evidence for routine use of drain after colorectal surgery. Despite evidence-based data questioning prophylactic drainage of abdominal cavity in many instances, most surgeons around the world continue to use drains on a routine basis until now. There are strong evidences in literature in favor of no apparent benefit of drainage for supra-peritoneal anastomoses; however, there is still controversies regarding drainage of infra-peritoneal rectal anastomoses.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

Outcomes of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer using different pelvic drainages

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility and efficiency of different pelvic drainage routes after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) for rectal cancer by assessing short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicopathological data of 76 patients undergoing LAPR for very low rectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively between June 2005 and June 2014. Outcomes were evaluated considering short- term results.

RESULTS

Of 76 relevant patients at our institution in the period of study, trans-perineal drainage of the pelvic cavity was performed in 17 cases. Compared with the trans-perineal group, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the trans-abdominal group, while the duration of drainage and the infection rates of the perineal wounds between two groups showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of this study suggest that trans-abdominal drainage of pelvic cavity is a reliable and feasible procedure, the duration of drainage, infection rates and the healing rates of the perineal wounds being acceptable. Trans-abdominal drainage has a more satisfactory effect after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma.

Is ileostomy always necessary following rectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis?

OBJECTIVE

To verify the hypothesis that in most patients bowel segmental resection to treat endometriosis can be safely performed without creation of a stoma and to discuss the limitations of this statement.

DESIGN

Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III).

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Forty-one women with sigmoid and rectal endometriotic lesions who underwent segmental resection.

INTERVENTION

Segmental resection procedures performed between 2004 and 2011. Patient demographic, operative, and postoperative data were compared.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sigmoid resection was performed in 6 patients (15%), and rectal anterior resection in 35 patients (high in 21 patients [51%], and low, i.e., <10 cm from the anal verge, in 14 [34%]). In 4 patients a temporary ileostomy was created. There was 1 anastomotic leak (2.4%), in a patient with an unprotected anastomosis, which was treated via laparoscopic surgery and creation of a temporary ileostomy. Other postoperative complications included hemoperitoneum, pelvic abscess, pelvic collection, and a ureteral vaginal fistula, in 1 patient each (all 2.4%).

CONCLUSION

A protective stoma may be averted in low anastomosis if it is >5 cm from the anal verge and there are no adverse intraoperative events.

Clinical pathway after robotic nephroureterectomy: omission of pelvic drain with next-day catheter removal and discharge

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of applying a postoperative clinical pathway after robotic nephroureterectomy (RNU) targeting safe omission of a pelvic drain and removal of the bladder catheter on the day after surgery with hospital discharge on postoperative day 1 (POD#1).

METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively collected database of all RNUs performed by a single surgeon (R.A.) since institution of our clinical pathway in 2008 that includes pelvic drain omission, bladder catheter removal the morning after surgery, and discharge on POD#1. Patient demographics, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Ability to adhere to the pathway and achieving the described parameters and whether any resulting complications occurred were determined.

RESULTS

RNU was performed in 29 patients with mean age and body mass index of 69 years (50-90 years) and 30 kg/m(2) (19-41 kg/m(2)), respectively. No patient required a pelvic drain, and 2 were discharged with a catheter. All but 2 patients (93%) were discharged on POD#1. Overall, successful pathway application was achieved in 26 of 29 patients (90%) including no drain, catheter removal on the morning after surgery, and discharge on POD#1. No patient developed urine leak or other complications related to early catheter removal.

CONCLUSION

Our clinical pathway after RNU allows safe omission of a pelvic drain with early discontinuation of the bladder catheter and discharge on the POD#1 in most patients. To our knowledge, similar pathways have not been previously achieved with nephroureterectomy by any approach, but should be considered by surgeons treating urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract.

To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Anastomotic leakage is the one of the most serious complications in rectal cancer surgery and is associated with high mortality, morbidity and an increased incidence of local recurrence. Although many studies have compared drained and undrained colorectal anastomoses, to date the role of pelvic drainage in extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis remains undefined.

METHOD

We carried out a systematic review of the literature, performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE and Embase up to 30 October 2012. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. We performed a meta-analysis of the data currently available on the incidence of extraperitoneal anastomotic leakage, according to the presence or absence of pelvic drainage.

RESULTS

Overall, eight studies - three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs, comprising a total of 2277 patients - were included in the meta-analysis. Pelvic drainage was demonstrated to reduce both the leak rate and the rate of reintervention in patients who underwent anterior rectal resection with extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.73; and OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.18-0.46, respectively) compared with patients without drainage. Overall mortality and infection rates were also evaluated, but a nonsignificant correlation was found with the presence of drainage.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis shows that the presence of a pelvic drain reduces the incidence of extraperitoneal colorectal anastomotic leakage and the rate of reintervention after anterior rectal resection.