Prophylactic Wound Drainage in Renal Transplantation: A Systematic Review

Prophylactic Peri-Nephric Drain Placement in Renal Transplant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Renal transplantation is common worldwide, with >25,000 procedures performed in 2022. Usage of prophylactic perinephric drains is variable in renal transplantation; drains are associated with risks, and there is a lack of consensus regarding benefit of routine drain placement in these patients. This meta-analysis assessed whether prophylactic drainage reduced need for reintervention postoperatively. This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out using the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, and prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Summary statistics for outcomes of interest underwent meta-analyses to a confidence interval (CI) of 95% and are presented as Forest Plots for Odds Ratio (OR). A systematic literature search in June 2023 revealed 1,540 unique articles across four databases. Of these, four retrospective cohort studies were selected. Meta-analysis of three studies showed no significant reduction in reintervention rate with pre-emptive drain placement, OR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.16-2.23), p = 0.44. Meta-analysis did not show a significant reduction in perinephric collections with prophylactic drain insertion OR = 0.55 (95% CI: 0.13-2.37), p = 0.42. Finally, there is not good evidence that drain placement reduces superficial wound complications or improves 12-month graft survival. Further work is needed, including well-designed, prospective studies to assess the risks and benefits of drain placement in these patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023422685, Identifier PROSPERO CRD42021255795.

Protective Effect of Subcutaneous Drains on Wound Infections in Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Wound infections following kidney transplantation are common, with a reported incidence of 5%-19%. In the first few days after surgery, these patients receive extremely high doses of immunosuppression and high volumes of intravenous fluids, and they represent a specific subgroup of surgical patients that may benefit from using prophylactic subcutaneous drains.

METHODS

We analyzed a nonrandomized series of 112 consecutive kidney transplants between January 2017 and December 2019: those who received a subcutaneous drain in addition to the standard retroperitoneal drain (SQ drain group) vs those with a retroperitoneal drain alone (standard group).

RESULTS

The SQ drain group had a significantly higher median BMI (31.2 vs 25.8, P < .0001) and a trend towards more patients having diabetes and receiving thymoglobulin on induction. Nonetheless, 1/36 (3%) of patients in the SQ drain group had a documented wound infection requiring packing compared to the standard group 13/73 (17%) (P = .032). When multivariate regression analysis accounted for the potential confounders BMI, thymoglobulin use, and diabetes, the protective effect of the SQ drain was more significant (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

An SQ drain may be a simple and inexpensive method to reduce the rate of wound complications in kidney transplant recipients; prospective studies are warranted.

No Benefit of Prophylactic Surgical Drainage in Combined Liver and Kidney Transplantation: Our Experience and Review of the Literature

Background: Contrasting results have emerged from limited studies investigating the role of prophylactic surgical drainage in preventing wound morbidity after liver and kidney transplantation. This retrospective study analyzes the use of surgical drain and the incidence of wound complications in combined liver and kidney transplantation (CLKTx).

Methods: A total of 55 patients aged ≥18 years were divided into two groups: the drain group (D) (n = 35) and the drain-free group (DF) (n = 20). Discretion to place a drain was based exclusively on surgeon preference. All deceased donor kidneys were connected to the LifePort Renal Preservation Machine® prior to transplantation, in both simultaneous and delayed technique of implantation of the renal allograft. The primary outcome was the development of superficial/deep wound complications during the study follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the development of delayed graft function (DGF) of the transplanted kidney, primary non-function (PNF) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) of the transplanted liver, graft failure, graft and patient survival, overall post-operative morbidity rate and length of hospital stay.

Results: With a median follow-up of 14.4 months after transplant, no difference in the incidence of superficial/deep wound complications, except for hematomas, in collections size, intervention rate, PNF, EAD, graft failure and patient survival, was observed between the 2 groups. Significantly lower level of platelets, higher INR values, DGF, morbidity rates and length of hospital stay were reported post-operatively in the D group. Pre-operative hypoalbuminemia and longer CIT were included in the propensity score for receiving a drain and were associated with a significantly higher rate of developing a hematoma post-transplant.

Conclusions: Absence of the surgical drain did not appear to adversely affect wound morbidity compared to the prophylactic use of drains in renal transplant patients during CLKTx.

Surgical site infection prevention and management in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised patients are at higher risk of surgical site infection and wound complications. However, optimal management in the perioperative period is not well established. Present systematic review aims to analyse existing strategies and interventions to prevent and manage surgical site infections and other wound complications in immunocompromised patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted.

RESULTS

Literature review shows that partial skin closure is effective to reduce SSI in this population. There is not sufficient evidence to definitively suggest in favour of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy. The use of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) in transplanted patient needing ad emergent or undeferrable abdominal surgical procedure must be carefully and multidisciplinary evaluated. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in transplanted patients needs to be assessed.

CONCLUSION

Strict adherence to SSI infection preventing bundles must be implemented worldwide especially in immunocompromised patients. Lastly, it is necessary to elaborate a more widely approved definition of immunocompromised state. Without such shared definition, it will be hard to elaborate the needed methodologically correct studies for this fragile population.