Early Versus Late Drainage Removal in Patients Who Underwent Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Using Trial Sequential Analysis

Efficacy of Chen's pancreaticojejunostomy for patients with soft pancreatic texture and small main pancreatic duct in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is the key step in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), the quality of which directly affects the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Soft pancreatic texture and a small main pancreatic duct (MPD) are risk factors for POPF, which also increase surgeons' difficulty with PJ. Chen's pancreaticojejunostomy is simple, feasible, and reproducible. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effects of Chen's pancreaticojejunostomy for patients with soft pancreas texture and a small MPD in LPD.

METHODS

The clinical data of 112 patients who underwent LPD with Chen's pancreaticojejunostomy in Xiangyang Central Hospital from February 2018 to December 2023 were analyzed retrospectively. Summarize and evaluate the critical clinical indicators and postoperative complications during the perioperative period.

RESULTS

All 112 patients successfully underwent LPD. The median operation time was 300 min, the median PJ time was 27 min, and the median intraoperative blood loss was 100 ml. 8 patients (7.1%) had POPF, all of which had grade B POPF, and no grade C POPF occurred. Postoperative mortality was 1.8% (2/112) within 90 days, and no patient died due to POPF. Among 45 cases (40.2%) with soft pancreatic texture, five patients (11.1%) developed POPF. Among 41 patients (36.6%) with a diameter of MPD ≤ 3 mm, four patients (9.8%) developed POPF. The texture of the pancreas and the diameter of MPD did not affect postoperative complications (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Chen's pancreaticojejunostomy is simple, safe and reliable, which is suitable for the condition of soft pancreatic texture or the small MPD.

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.

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons' use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67-100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5-20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1-50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.