Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreatic Resection: Does A Superior Drainage System Exist? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Abdominal Digestive System Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.

METHODS

Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; P = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; P = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; P = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; P = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; P = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; P = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; P = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; P = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; P = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; P = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.

Risk factors of wound infection after lung transplantation: a narrative review

Background and Objective

The incidence of incision infection after lung transplantation is prominently high which affect the prognosis. Summarizing the risk factors related to incision infection after lung transplantation contribute to the control of incision infection by pre-controlling the risk factors. The objective is to summarize risk factors related to wound infection after lung transplantation.

Methods

PubMed was used to research the literature relating to the risk factors to incision infection after lung transplantation through 1990 to 2022. The retrieval strategy were Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms combined entry terms. Two researchers conducted the literature retrieval independently. Two researchers independently evaluate the quality of the literature and summarize the indicators.

Key Content and Findings

A total of 98 researches were collected from PubMed and 8 articles described the related risk factors of incision infection after lung transplantation. All of the 8 articles were retrospective studies, of which 4 articles were grouped by the delayed chest closure (DCC) execution and the other 4 articles were grouped by the surgical site infection (SSI) occurred. Two articles performed multivariate regression analysis to determine the independent risk factors of SSI after lung transplantation and the other 6 articles compared the SSI rate in different patients population. The integrated results showed that bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs), smoking status, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, operation duration, thoracic drainage tube placement time and DCC were related to the SSI after lung transplantation.

Conclusions

BALs, smoking status, BMI, diabetes, operation duration, thoracic drainage tube placement time and DCC were related to the SSI after lung transplantation.