The uses and abuses of drains in abdominal surgery

Effect of peritoneal drainage on the prognosis following appendectomy in pediatric patients with appendicitis: a retrospective study based on appendicitis grade

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the impact of peritoneal drainage and its type on prognosis, encompassing postoperative recovery and complications, in pediatric patients (≤ 16 years old) following appendectomy based on the grade of appendicitis.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we analyzed pediatric patients (≤ 16 years old) with appendicitis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in our center from January 2017 to January 2024 and classified them into grade I-V based on the grade of appendicitis, with V representing the most serious cases. The patients were grouped according to drainage status and type. The main clinical outcomes included postoperative rehabilitation indexes such as time to resume a soft diet, time to remove the drain, duration of postoperative antibiotic use and length of hospitalization (LOH), as well as postoperative complications including intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), ileus and wound infection (WI), and readmission within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 385 pediatric patients with appendicitis were included in the study and divided into No-drainage (ND) group (n = 74), Passive drainage (PD) group (n = 246) and Active drainage (AD) group (n = 65) according to drainage status and type. Compared to the other two groups, the ND group had a significantly shorter time to resume a soft diet, duration of postoperative antibiotic use and LOH, and these differences were statistically significant. Similar findings were observed in grade I patients too (P < 0.05). In all cases examined here, the AD group had a significantly shorter time for drain removal compared to the PD group (3.04 [1-12] vs 2.74 [1-15], P = 0.049); this difference was also evident among grade I patients (2.80 [1-6] vs 2.47 [1-9], P = 0.019). Furthermore, within the same grade, only in grade IV did the AD group exhibit a shorter duration of postoperative antibiotic use compared to the PD group (4.75 [4-5] vs 8.33 [5-15], P = 0.009). Additionally, the LOH in the AD group was longer than that in the PD group (8.00 [4-13] vs 4.75 [4-5], P = 0.025). Among all cases, the ND group exhibited significantly lower incidences of overall complications and WI compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). Additionally, the incidence of IAA in the ND group was significantly lower than that in the PD group (0% vs 5.3%, P = 0.008 < 0.0167). Furthermore, although there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of overall complications, IAA, ileus, and WI between the PD and AD groups during grade ≥ II analysis (P > 0.05), a higher readmission rate within 30 days was observed in the PD group compared to the AD group; however, these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that a higher grade of appendicitis was associated with an increased risk of overall complications and IAA as well as a longer duration of postoperative antibiotic use and LOH.

CONCLUSION

The appendicitis grade is a crucial indicator for predicting postoperative IAA and LOH. In patients with grade I appendicitis, peritoneal drainage, even if active drainage, is not recommended; For patients with grade ≥ II appendicitis, active drainage may be more effective than passive drainage in reducing the duration of postoperative antibiotic use and LOH.

Controversies and Future Directions in Management of Acute Appendicitis: An Updated Comprehensive Review

Globally, acute appendicitis has an estimated lifetime risk of 7-8%. However, there are numerous controversies surrounding the management of acute appendicitis, and the best treatment approach depends on patient characteristics. Non-operative management (NOM), which involves the utilization of antibiotics and aggressive intravenous hydration, and surgical appendectomy are valid treatment options for healthy adults. NOM is also ideal for poor surgical candidates. Another important consideration is the timing of surgery, i.e., the role of interval appendectomy (IA) and the possibility of delaying surgery for a few hours on index admission. IA refers to surgical removal of the appendix 8-12 weeks after the initial diagnosis of appendicitis. It is ideal in patients with a contained appendiceal perforation on initial presentation, wherein an initial nonoperative approach is preferred. Furthermore, IA can help distinguish malignant and non-malignant causes of acute appendicitis, while reducing the risk of recurrence. On the contrary, a decision to delay appendectomy for a few hours on index admission should be made based on the patients' baseline health status and severity of appendicitis. Post-operatively, surgical drain placement may help reduce postoperative complications; however, it carries an increased risk of drain occlusion, fistula formation, and paralytic ileus. Furthermore, one of the most critical aspects of appendectomy is the closure of the appendiceal stump, which can be achieved with the help of endoclips, sutures, staples, and endoloops. In this review, we discuss different aspects of management of acute appendicitis, current controversies in management, and the potential role of endoscopic appendectomy as a future treatment option.

Evisceration of appendix via drain site - a rare complication in a child

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Abdominal drains prevent fluid accumulation and help drain fluid (blood, pus). In recent years, abdominal drains have been used less frequently due to drain-associated complications, like infections, anastomotic leakage, and the potential for the evisceration of intra-abdominal organs on drain removal.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a young female with evisceration of the appendix via the drain site, successfully managed by abdominal exploration and appendectomy.

CASE DISCUSSION

The use of prophylactic abdominal drain is controversial and is of limited use even in complicated appendicitis in the modern era of antibiotics. If a drain is inserted, it should be removed at the earliest to avoid associated complications.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal drain usage should be minimized in children to avoid post-operative complications.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage following appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: A meta-analysis

Background

To date, the value of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) following appendectomy in patients with complicated appendicitis (CA), including adults and children, has yet to be determined. This paper presents a meta-analysis of the effects of prophylactic AD on postoperative complications in patients with CA, with the goal of exploring the safety and effectiveness of prophylactic AD.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles published before August 1, 2022. The primary outcomes were the complication rates [overall incidence of postoperative complications, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection (WI), and postoperative ileus (PI), and the secondary outcome was the perioperative outcome]. The meta-analysis was performed with STATA V. 16.0A.

Results

A total of 2,627 articles were retrieved and 15 high-quality articles were eventually included after screening, resulting in a total of 5,123 patients, of whom 1,796 received AD and 3,327 did not. The results of this meta-analysis showed that compared with patients in the non-drainage group, patients in the drainage group had longer postoperative length of hospitalization (LOH) (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.01-1.35, P = 0.046), higher overall incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.19-0.81, P = 0.01), higher incidence of WI (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.08-0.51, P = 0.01) and PI (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.57-1.54, P = 0.01), the differences were statistically significant. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of IAA (OR = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.31, P = 0.31) between the two groups. The results of subgroup meta-analysis showed that in the adult subgroup, the overall incidence of postoperative complications in the drainage group was higher than that in the non-drainage group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.37-0.96, P = 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in IAA (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.64, P = 0.45) and WI (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: (-0.40 to 0.66, P = 0.63) and PI (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: -0.29 to 5.71, P = 0.08). In the children subgroup, there were no significant differences in the incidence of IAA (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.09, P = 0.08) between the two groups. The overall incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.02-0.90, P = 0.04), incidences of WI (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71, P = 0.01) and PI (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.10-1.39, P = 0.02) were significantly higher than those in the non-drainage group.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis concluded that prophylactic AD did not benefit from appendectomy, but increased the incidence of related complications, especially in children with CA. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of prophylactic AD following appendectomy.

Evaluation of Drain Insertion After Appendicectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of drain insertion versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus was conducted, and all studies comparing drain versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis were included. Abdominal collection, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, faecal fistula, paralytic ileus, length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Seventeen studies reporting a total number of 4,255 patients who underwent appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis with (n=1,580) or without (n=2,657) drain were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding abdominal collection (odds ratio (OR)=1.41, P=0.13). No-drain group was superior to the drain group regarding SSI (OR=1.93, P=0.0001), faecal fistula (OR=4.76, P=0.03), intestinal obstruction (OR=2.40, P=0.04) and paralytic ileus (OR=2.07, P=0.01). There was a difference regarding mortality rate between the two groups (3.4% in the drain group vs 0.5% in the no-drain group, risk difference (RD)=0.01, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.04), P=0.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has shown that drains have no effect on the development of intra-abdominal collections in complicated appendicitis, but it can significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications such as fistula, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, ileus and length of hospital stay.

The Role of Abdominal Drain Cultures in Managing Abdominal Infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are common in hospitalized patients, both in and outside of the intensive care unit. Management principles include antimicrobial therapy and source control. Typically, these infections are polymicrobial, and intra-operative samples will guide the targeted antimicrobial therapy. Although the use of prophylactic abdominal drains in patients undergoing abdominal surgery is decreasing, the use of drains to treat IAI, both in surgical and non-surgical strategies for abdominal infection, is increasing. In this context, samples from abdominal drains are often used to assist in antimicrobial decision making. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the current role of abdominal drains in surgery, discuss the importance of biofilm formation in abdominal drains and the mechanisms involved, and review the clinical data on the use of sampling these drains for diagnostic purposes. We conclude that biofilm formation and the colonization of abdominal drains is common, which precludes the use of abdominal fluid to reliably diagnose IAI and identify the pathogens involved. We recommend limiting the use of drains and, when present, avoiding routine microbiological sampling.

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Background

Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice.

Methods

COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement.

Results

Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.

Monitoring drainage flow rate facilitates prompt intervention with re-laparoscopy for postoperative bleeding after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: A case-control study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to identify the characteristics of cases involving postoperative bleeding after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery, and to clarify the optimal cutoff value of postoperative drainage and vital sign trends for predicting the need for re-laparoscopy.

METHODS

Of 6366 patients with gynecologic benign pathologies who underwent laparoscopic surgery at our institution between 2009 and 2018, 13 (0.2%) required re-laparoscopy for postoperative bleeding. After reviewing the perioperative course in the re-laparoscopy group, we examined the postoperative total drainage volume (mL), drainage flow rate (mL/h), and vital sign trends in the re-laparoscopy group (n = 13) and among patients with substantial drainage volume ≥300 mL at 12 hours postoperatively but who did not need re-laparoscopy (observation group, n = 107).

RESULTS

In the re-laparoscopy group, initial laparoscopic surgery included uterine surgery (myomectomy, n = 7; hysterectomy, n = 1), adnexal surgery (n = 3), and uterine plus adnexal surgery (n = 2). Postoperative bleeding sites included the uterine wound (n = 6), adnexal wound (n = 5), umbilical trocar site (n = 1), and mesentery (n = 1). The re-laparoscopy and observation groups did not differ regarding initial surgical characteristics or postoperative vital sign trends. For distinguishing between the re-laparoscopy and observation groups, the drainage flow rate was superior to total drainage volume. Continuous excessive drainage (flow rate >50 mL/h) at 3 hours postoperatively was associated with a remarkably increased risk for re-laparoscopy (odds ratio, 40.07; 95% confidence interval, 5.44 to 1776.41, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In cases with continuous excessive drainage later than 3 hours postoperatively (flow rate >50 mL/h) should be considered for exploratory re-laparoscopy to enable prompt diagnosis and intervention.

To drain or not to drain: intraperitoneal closed-suction drainage placement during cesarean delivery

INTRODUCTION

Intraperitoneal closed suction drains are occasionally placed during cesarean delivery. This study aims to ascertain the prevalence, associated factors, outcome, and risks of intraperitoneal closed-suction drain placed during cesarean delivery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing cesarean delivery in a single center from 2005 to 2015. We excluded cases of cesarean hysterectomy and women who had hollow viscus injury. Cesarean deliveries were categorized into two groups based on intraperitoneal drain use: drain + and drain-.The study aims were to describe: (1) drain use prevalence; (2) factors associated with drain use; (3) interval to relaparotomy due to intraperitoneal bleeding and outcome of drain use; and (4) unique drain-related adverse outcome. Statistics: univariate, multivariable, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.

RESULTS

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 581 (99.3%) cesareans were included. An intraperitoneal drain was used in 1264 (7.6%) cesareans, ranging from 4.4 to 18.8% in women with no and four or more cesareans, respectively. Comparing the drain + and drain- groups, multivariable analysis revealed that the factors associated with the use of a drain included (OR, 95%CI) uterine rupture (5.14, 3.15-8.38), intrapartum fever (2.65, 1.87-3.75), previous cesareans (2.29, 2.00-2.68), second-stage cesarean (2.21, 1.64-2.74), preterm delivery (1.89, 1.63-2.19), spontaneous onset of labor (1.42, 1.24-1.63), and maternal age greater than 35 years (1.35, 1.19-1.54); p < .001 for all. Of the forty-four women (0.27%) who underwent relaparotomy for intraperitoneal bleeding, there were fourteen in the intraperitoneal drain group. Inverse probability treatment weighting analysis demonstrated that median (interquartile range) times (hours) to relaparotomy were significantly shorter in the drain + group [3.5 (3.3-10.0) versus 12.5 (7.9-15.6), p < .001] and that puerperal fever incidence was higher in the drain + group (2.2 vs. 1.4%, p < .001). The incidence of relaparotomy to remove a retained drain or drain fragment was 0.48% (6/1264).

CONCLUSIONS

Drain use in our study resulted in a shorter time to relaparotomy for intraperitoneal hemorrhage. However, it was associated with a higher risk for puerperal fever and a 0.5% risk for relaparotomy for removal of the drain.KEY MESSAGEIntraperitoneal drain placed during cesarean is used more often in complicated surgeries and is associated with a shorter interval to relaparotomy.

Postoperative Drain Use in Cranial Vault Remodeling: A Survey of Craniofacial Surgeon Practices and a Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The use of subgaleal drains following primary cranioplasty for craniosynostosis has undergone limited investigation. Proposed benefits include prevention of seroma, detection of postoperative bleeding, and cerebrospinal fluid leak. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and surveyed craniofacial surgeons to ascertain the current evidence pertaining to drain use following primary cranioplasty for craniosynostosis and to determine surgical practice patterns.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Abstracts were reviewed by 2 investigators, and a Cohen κ statistic was calculated. Patient demographic and outcome data were extracted and compared. A 9-question survey was e-mailed to active and associate members of the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 7395 unique citations were identified. Only 2 retrospective chart reviews met inclusion criteria. All objective parameters demonstrated no difference between patients with and without drains. A subjective benefit of limiting facial swelling was proposed without objective analysis. Fifty (32.5%) of the 154 craniofacial surgeons responded to the survey. Forty-two percent used postoperative drains. A significant association (P = .01) was found between the belief that drains limited facial swelling and their use.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature examining postoperative drain use in primary cranioplasty for craniosynostosis is restricted. The current studies show no definite benefit to drain use but are limited in their assessment of key outcomes. There is wide variability among surgeons regarding drain use, and this seems to be motivated by belief and tradition.

Abdominal Drainage After Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children: An Endless Controversy?

BACKGROUND

Routine prophylactic abdominal drains after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children are still controversial. Throughout the history of surgery, potential benefits of the abdominal drains have been described. However, in recent studies, no benefits were observed and serious complications have been reported.

METHODS

From January 2000 to December 2013, all charts of the pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy in our tertiary center were revised. The data from 1736 appendectomies were analyzed. We only included those patients with perforated appendicitis treated with early appendectomy (n = 192). Prophylactic drains were established according to the surgeon's preference. The sample was divided into two groups, those with drain (n = 117) and those without drain (n = 75). Demographics, operative findings, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed in both groups.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 121 were male and 71 were female with a mean age of 7.77 ± 3.4 years. There were not statistically significant differences between the groups in gender (p = 0.82) and mean age (p = 0.31). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the rate of intra-abdominal abscess, wound infection, and bowel obstruction. However, the drainage group has been statistically associated with an increased requirement of antibiotic and analgesic medication, fasting time, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic use of abdominal drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children does not prevent postoperative complications and may be associated with negative outcomes. Prospective randomized studies will be necessary to verify this question.

Experimental comparison of abdominal drainage systems

BACKGROUND

In an experimental study the performance of different closed abdominal drainage systems was tested.

METHODS

A vacuum bottle designed for Redon Drainage, a flexible plastic bulb designed for Jackson-Pratt drains and a V.A.C.^® Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System were used. In a porcine cadaveric study mimicking the abdominal cavity the intrinsic pressure (IP) at one and three minutes (T0, T3) and the amount of evacuated fluid were measured.

RESULTS

The Redon and Jackson drainage displayed a rapid decline to IP values of almost zero comparing T0 and T3. Only the V.A.C.^® system was able to preserve constant values of negative IP values measured at both time points. Only the V.A.C.^® system was able to remove almost the whole amount of inserted fluid.

CONCLUSIONS

In an experimental setting the V.A.C.^® system was superior to the other two tested systems in delivering constant negative IP and the amount of evacuated fluid.

Drain insertion after appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis based on a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Management of appendicitis in children has always been an issue in pediatric surgery. Both diagnostic methods and treatment vary significantly among medical centers, and little consensus exists in many aspects of the care for patients with appendicitis. Here, we assessed the value of drain insertion after appendectomy in children.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of pediatric patients who underwent appendectomy for perforated appendicitis at a tertiary medical center between 2003 and 2012. Patients who had a peritoneal drain inserted after appendectomy were compared with patients without drains regarding preoperative features and postoperative outcomes. Statistical analyses included a 2-tailed Student t-test and a chi-square or Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

In total, 958 patients were reviewed. Of 342 patients with perforated appendicitis, 108 (31.6%) had Jackson-Pratt (JP) drains inserted. The JP group had a longer hospital stay compared with the non-JP group (6.38 ± 3.59 days vs. 3.87 ± 2.38 days, P < 0.001). The JP group also had higher complication rates (22.2% vs. 6.8%, P = 0.003), including the formation of intra-abdominal abscesses.

CONCLUSION

According to our results, there seems to be little evidence to support peritoneal drain insertion after appendectomy, even in perforated appendicitis cases.

A brief review of laparoscopic appendectomy: the issues and the evidence

Laparoscopic appendectomy was first performed more than 25 years ago. We performed a systematic literature search on laparoscopic appendectomy and selected related topics. The technique should be considered the gold standard for surgical removal of the appendix in women of childbearing age (level of evidence Ia). There is minor but consistent evidence that it should also be advocated for men (level of evidence III), obese (level of evidence III), and elderly (level of evidence IIb) patients, while there is some evidence of unfavorable results on pregnant women (level of evidence IIb). Studies reporting higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses after laparoscopic appendectomy are difficult to interpret due to a lack of standardization of the operative technique and lack of uniformity related to the different grades of disease (ranging from uninflamed appendix to diffuse peritonitis, gangrene, or perforation of the organ). As far as surgical technique, the three-port procedure is superior to needleoscopy and single port access (level of evidence Ia). Costly high-tech instruments for dissection are mostly unnecessary (level Ib). Mechanical closure of the stump might prove safer (level Ib). The quantity of peritoneal lavage fluid is generally scanty (level III), and abdominal drains are not useful (level Ia). Fast-track protocols should be implemented (level Ic). Training and technical standardization are the key to devising future trials on this topic.

Small bowel evisceration following removal of an abdominal drain

Drain site small bowel evisceration represents a small but potentially serious risk following abdominal drain removal. We present the case of a patient in whom removal of an abdominal drain was complicated by small bowel evisceration requiring surgical intervention. Strategies for management, consequences and potential preventive measures are discussed.

A simple technique of inserting an intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVES

We describe a simple technique for introducing any size of intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopy through a 3-5 mm port site without any of the drawbacks of other techniques practiced.

METHODS

Setting is usually of a conventional laparoscopic surgery with various ports positioned depending on the procedure performed. At the end of theprocedure a 5 mm port site cannula is usually chosen to 'pull in' an intra-abdominal drain by railroading, under vision.

RESULTS

Railroading method of insertion of intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopy is always successful with no failure rate and no associated complications.

CONCLUSION

When indicated, this is the simplest method of inserting an intra-abdominal drain after laparoscopic surgery.

Percutaneous Drainage of Postoperative Abdominal Abscess with Limited Accessibility: Preexisting Surgical Drains as Alternative Access Route

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess the effectiveness and safety of postoperative percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscesses with limited accessibility by using a preexisting surgical drain as an access route.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was not required. The authors reviewed the medical records of 92 patients (62 male, 30 female; median age, 59 years; age range, 3-79 years) with postoperative abdominal abscesses in whom percutaneous drainage was performed by using surgical drains as an access. Factors evaluated included the location and size of the lesion; time between surgery and the drainage procedure; distance between the lesion and surgical drain; presence of fistula; duration of drainage; type of surgical drain; size, type, and length of drainage catheter; and complications. Technical success was defined as adequate placement of a new drainage catheter into the target abscess. Midterm success was defined as avoidance of surgery or additional percutaneous drainage during the 6 months of follow-up. Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed to determine factors that affected the technical or midterm success of the procedure.

RESULTS

Of 92 postoperative abscesses for which the technique was attempted, 56 (61%) had a subphrenic location and 36 (39%) had a peripancreatic location. Technical success was achieved in 87 of the 92 patients (95%). Technical success was not significantly associated with any of the factors tested. Midterm success was achieved in 75 of the 87 patients (86%) in whom technical success was achieved. Midterm failure showed a statistically significant relationship with the presence of fistula (P = .04). No procedure-related complications were identified.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous drainage by using the surgical drain as an access route is an effective and safe alternative for draining postoperative abdominal abscesses that are less accessible with direct puncture..

Topical negative pressure versus closed surgical wound drainage: a difference in philosophy

Vacuum force (suction) is commonly used in wound management strategies. Topical negative pressure wound therapy and closed surgical wound drainage both use vacuum force but each have different modus operandi.