No drains versus drains after perforated peptic ulcer repair: A randomized controlled trail

Mohammed Elshwadfy Nageeb,Wael Tobar,Ahmed Saqr,Amr Aly Ragab,Ahmed Mohammed Salah eldeen Othman Elansary

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02551-6

2024-06-16

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

Abstract:The study aimed to evaluate safety of omitting the intraabdominal drains after perforated peptic ulcer repairs.

emergency medicine

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Drain or No Drain Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Unsolved Dilemma

A. Zaghal,H. Tamim,S. Habib,R. Jaafar,D. Mukherji,M. Khalife,A. Mailhac,W. Faraj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496919840960

2019-03-31

Scandinavian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background and aims: There is no consensus regarding the routine placement of intra-abdominal drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We aim to determine the effects of intraperitoneal drain placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy on 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. Methods: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors were identified from the 2014–2015 American College of Surgeons—National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Univariate and multivariate analyses adjusting for known prognostic variables were performed. A subgroup analysis was performed based on the risk for development of postoperative pancreatic leak determined by the pancreatic duct caliber, parenchymal texture, and body mass index. Results: A total of 6858 patients with pancreatic tumors who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified in the 2014–2015 American College of Surgeons—National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database dataset. In all, 87.4% of patients had intraperitoneal drains placed. A 30-day mortality rate was higher in the no-drain group (2.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.003). Patients in the drain group had a higher incidence of overall morbidity (49.5% vs. 41.2%, P = 0.0008), delayed gastric emptying (18.1% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.004), pancreatic fistulae (19.4% vs. 9.9%, P ⩽ 0.0001), and prolonged length of hospital stay over 10 days (43.7% vs. 34.9%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on risk categories revealed a higher 30-day mortality rate in the no-drain group among patients with high-risk features (3.1% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.02). Delayed gastric emptying and pancreatic fistula development remained significantly higher in the drain group only in the high-risk category. Prolonged length of hospital stay and composite morbidity remained higher in the drain group regardless of the risk category. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date that aims at clarifying the pros and cons of the intraperitoneal drain placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors. We showed a higher 30-day mortality rate if drain insertion was omitted during pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with softer pancreatic textures, smaller pancreatic duct caliber, and body mass index over 25. Postoperative 30-day morbidity rate was higher if a drain was inserted regardless of the risk category. Further randomized controlled trials with prospective evaluation of stratification factors for fistula risk are needed to establish a clear recommendation.

surgery
Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

Shanjun Tan,Guohao Wu,Qiulin Zhuang,Qiulei Xi,Qingyang Meng,Yi Jiang,Yusong Han,Chao Yu,Zhen Yu,Ning Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.077

2016-01-01

International Journal of Surgery

Abstract:•Laparoscopic surgery is comparable with open procedure in the setting of repair for perforated peptic ulcer.•The advantages of laparoscopic surgery are lower surgical site infection rate, shorter nasogastric tube duration, and less postoperative pain.•More higher quality RCTs are still needed to further confirm this conclusion.
Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Mauro Podda,Salomone Di Saverio,R Justin Davies,Jenny Atzeni,Francesco Balestra,Francesco Virdis,Isabella Reccia,Kumar Jayant,Ferdinando Agresta,Adolfo Pisanu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.05.006

Abstract: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.
Adapted ERAS Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Emergency Surgery for Perforation Peritonitis-a Randomized Controlled Trial

A R Pranavi,Sathasivam Sureshkumar,Thulasingam Mahalakshmy,Pankaj Kundra,Vikram Kate

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05184-x

Abstract:Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways have an uncertain role in emergencies. To the best of our knowledge, there are no trials studying ERAS in perforation peritonitis across the GI tract, despite it being a common surgical emergency. Aims: To evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of adapted ERAS protocols in emergency laparotomy for perforation peritonitis. Methods: This was an open-labeled, superiority randomized controlled trial conducted between October 2018 and June 2020 in patients with perforation peritonitis assigned to standard care or adapted ERAS groups using block randomization. Patients with refractory shock, ASA class 4E, localized peritonitis, etc. were excluded. Components of the adapted ERAS protocol included epidural analgesia, goal-directed fluid therapy, avoidance of opioids, early mobilization, early removal of tubes, drains and catheters, and early enteral feeding. The primary outcome, length of hospitalization (LOH), and the secondary outcomes, functional recovery parameters, were analyzed between both the groups. Results: A total of 59 patients in standard care group and 61 patients in adapted ERAS group were included and randomized, and were comparable in terms of demographic and clinico-pathological characteristics. LOH in adapted ERAS group was shorter by 3 days (p < 0.001), and patients showed reduction in time (days) to first flatus (2.84 vs 4.22, p < 0.001), first stool (4.38 vs 6.08, p < 0.001) and solid diet (4.67 vs 8.37, p < 0.001). Post-operative nausea, vomiting (p = 0.05) and surgical site infections (p < 0.001) were reduced in adapted ERAS group. Pre-existing malignancy, respiratory complications and high output stoma were reasons for delayed discharge in adapted ERAS group. Conclusion: Adapted ERAS pathways considerably reduce LOH in patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforation peritonitis, with no adverse events in 30 days after discharge. Trial registration: Registered at http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php (CTRI/2019/02/017537).
Combined endoscopic and radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial

Said Negm,Hatem Mohamed,Ahmed Shafiq,Taha AbdelKader,Adel Ismail,Mahmoud Yassin,Bassam Mousa,Mohamed Abozaid,Yasser A. Orban,Mazoun Al Alawi and Ahmed Farag

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00429-9

2022-05-25

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

Abstract:Peptic ulcer perforation is a common life-threatening surgical emergency. Graham omental patch is performed for plugging of perforated peptic ulcer. Many endoscopic methods have been used to treat acute perforated peptic ulcer such as over the scope clips, standard endoscopic clips, endoscopic sewing and metallic stents. The main idea in endoscopic management of acute perforated peptic ulcer is early decontamination and decrease sepsis by interventional radiologic drainage.

surgery,emergency medicine
No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled PANDRA Trial (ISRCTN04937707)

Helmut Witzigmann,Markus K Diener,Stefan Kienkötter,Inga Rossion,Thomas Bruckner,Bärbel Werner,Olaf Pridöhl,Olga Radulova-Mauersberger,Heike Lauer,Phillip Knebel,Alexis Ulrich,Oliver Strobel,Thilo Hackert,Markus W Büchler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001859

Abstract:Objective: This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of drains does not increase reintervention rates after pancreatic surgery. Background: There is considerable uncertainty regarding intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis were randomized to intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage. Primary endpoint was overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention). Secondary endpoints were clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), mortality, morbidity, and hospital stay. The planned sample size was 188 patients per group. Results: A total of 438 patients were randomized. Forty-three patients (9.8%) were excluded because no pancreatic anastomosis was performed, and 395 patients (202 drain, 193 no-drain) were analyzed. Reintervention rates were not inferior in the no-drain group (drain 21.3%, no-drain 16.6%; P = 0.0004). Overall in-hospital mortality (3.0%) was the same in both groups (drain 3.0%, no-drain 3.1%; P = 0.936). Overall surgical morbidity (41.8%) was comparable (P = 0.741). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C: drain 11.9%, no-drain 5.7%; P = 0.030) and fistula-associated complications (drain 26.4%; no drain 13.0%; P = 0.0008) were significantly reduced in the no-drain group. Operation time (P = 0.093), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.174), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.199), biliary leakage (P = 0.382), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.062), burst abdomen (P = 0.480), wound infection (P = 0.758), and hospital stay (P = 0.487) did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Omission of drains was not inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reintervention and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. There is no need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis.
Safety of Selective Operative Drainage After Pancreatic Resection

Josephine Magnin,Joshua S. Jolissaint,Hannah E. Fuchs,Kenneth Seier,Mithat Gonen,Ahmad Barekzai,Vinod P. Balachandran,Michael I. D’Angelica,Jeffrey A. Drebin,T. Peter Kingham,Kevin Soares,Alice C. Wei,William R. Jarnagin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006425

IF: 13.787

2024-06-28

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Objective: To assess whether selective omission of operative drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Background: The routine use of operative drains after pancreatectomy is widely practiced; however, prospective randomized clinical trials and retrospective analyses have shown mixed results. Methods: Patients who underwent PD or DP between November 2009 and May 2021 were reviewed and stratified by operative drain placement. Patient demographics, morbidity, the need for additional procedures, and mortality were compared between patients who did or did not develop a clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Results: In total, 1,855 PD and 752 DP cases were analyzed. Among PD patients with a CR-POPF (N=259, 14%), 160 (62%) had an operative drain placed, of whom 141 (88%) required at least 1 additional procedure. Within this subgroup, grade ≥ 4 complications (7.5% vs. 11.1%, P =0.37), 90-day mortality (3.8% vs. 6.1%, P =0.54), length of stay (LOS) (median 12 vs. 13 d, P =0.19) and readmission rates (63.1% vs. 54.6%, P =0.19) were similar between drained and non-drained patients. Of note, drained PD patients without a CR-POPF had a longer hospital stay (8 vs. 7 d, respectively, P =0.004) and more thromboembolic events (2.4% vs. 1.1%, respectively, P =0.04) Among DP patients with a CR-POPF (n=129), 44 had an operative drain, with 37 (84%) requiring an additional procedure. Within this subgroup, grade ≥ 4 complications (4.6% vs. 5.9%, P >0.95), 90-day mortality (0%), LOS (median 7 d for both, P =0.88) and readmission rates (72.7% vs. 80%, P =0.38) were similar in drained and non-drained patients. Conclusion: This study confirms that selective omission of operative drains does not compromise perioperative outcomes, as initially reported in our prospective randomized trial.

surgery
Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers

Roberto Cirocchi,Kjetil Soreide,Salomone Di Saverio,Elena Rossi,Alberto Arezzo,Mauro Zago,Iosief Abraha,Nereo Vettoretto,Massimo Chiarugi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001925

Abstract:Background: Surgery is the treatment of choice for perforated peptic ulcer disease. The aim of the present review was to compare the perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Results: The search included eight RCTs: 615 patients comparing laparoscopic (307 patients) versus open peptic perforated ulcer repair (308 patients). Only few studies reported the Boey score, the Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation score, and the Mannheim Peritonitis Index. In the RCTs, there is a significant heterogeneity about the gastric or duodenal location of peptic ulcer and perforation size. All trials were with high risk of bias. This meta-analysis reported a significant advantage of laparoscopic repair only for postoperative pain in first 24 hours (-2.08; 95% confidence interval, -2.79 to -1.37) and for postoperative wound infection (risk ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.66). An equivalence of the other clinical outcomes (postoperative mortality rate, overall reoperation rate, overall leaks of the suture repair, intra-abdominal abscess rate, operative time of postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric aspiration time, and time to return to oral diet) was reported. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in most of the clinical outcomes between the two groups; there was less early postoperative pain and fewer wound infections after laparoscopic repair. The reported equivalence of clinical outcomes is an important finding. These results parallel the results of several other comparisons of open versus laparoscopic general surgery operations-equally efficacious with lower rates of wound infection and improvement in some measures of enhanced speed or comfort in recovery. Notably, the trials included have been published throughout a considerable time span during which several changes have occurred in most health care systems, not least a widespread use of laparoscopy and increase in the laparoscopic skills. Level of evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Study of Risk Factors Leading to Conversion of Laparoscopic Simple Closure to Open Surgery in Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Emad Mohammed Salah,Tamer Alsaied Alnaimy,Atwa Arafat Atwa,Gamal Mohamed Osman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2023.279945

2023-01-01

The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine

Abstract:Background: When compared to open surgery for perforated peptic ulcers, laparoscopic treatment has many advantages, including less pain, a quicker recovery time, and less consequences. Objective: This study aimed to assess the risk factors that lead to conversion of laparoscopic simple closure of perforated peptic ulcer to open procedure in Zagazig University Hospitals. Subjects and Methods: Our study is prospective randomized clinical trial was done in the General Surgery Department at Zagazig University Hospital on a study sample of 24 patients who visited an emergency room complaining of severe stomach discomfort and were told they had a perforated peptic ulcer. Those patients underwent laparoscopic repair at first. The steps of laparoscopic repair were performed after the perforation site was located laparoscopically, assuming that the initial diagnosis was correct. Results: Studied groups differed significantly regarding duration of perforation and its size, hospital stay and duration of operation. These variables were higher among conversion group than laparoscopic group. The average laparoscopic simple closure (LSC) conversion rate was 12.4% (range: 0% to 28.5%). The size of the perforation was the primary factor in most cases of conversion, however the location of the perforation was also a typical contributing factor. Only 4 of the total 24 instances in the research were converted, at a percentage of (16.7%). Conclusion: Laparoscopic management of perforated peptic ulcer is safe and practicable for the well-trained surgeon. It causes less pain postoperatively, and the rate of complications is less than an open approach.
Laparoscopic repair vs open repair for perforated peptic ulcers: Quality of life assessment

Suleyman Caglar Ertekin,Ozhan Cetindag,Muhammer Ergenç,Cumhur Yeğen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2024.07.023

Abstract:Purpose: Studies reporting patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life and satisfaction, in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment are insufficient. This study was designed to assess the relative efficacy of laparoscopic repair (LR) as opposed to open surgical repair (OR) in the treatment of and its impact on quality of life. Methods: This investigation performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent treatment for PPU at a secondary care hospital between January 2017 and April 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 separate groups according to the type of surgical procedure received: LR and OR. Comparisons were made based on a variety of factors, such as demographic data, intra- and postoperative metrics, pain control, patient contentment, and quality of life indicators. Results: In the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the LR (n = 35) and OR (n = 62) groups (P > .05). Conversely, the rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection were significantly greater in the OR group (P < .05). Moreover, the LR exhibited benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < .05), more rapid resumption of a normal diet, and fewer surgical site infections-factors that contributed to a lower rate of overall postoperative complications. According to the quality-of-life questionnaire, the LR group exhibited significantly greater scores for physical function, role, pain, and general health by the 30th postoperative day (P = .003, P < .001, P = .006, and P = .001, respectively), and by the 1-year follow-up, the LR group showed substantial improvements in physical function, physical role, emotional role, pain and general health (P = .047, P = .004, P = .039, P = .001, and P = .021, respectively), indicating its effectiveness in patient recovery and quality of life enhancement after surgery. Conclusion: This study showed that LR could provide certain benefits in managing PPUs, such as reduced lengths of hospital stay and lower incidences of surgical site infections. Although LR reported promising directions in patient satisfaction and quality of life indicators, the limited duration of postoperative monitoring necessitates caution in broadly applying these results.
Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair

Gaik S. Quah,Guy D. Eslick,Michael R. Cox

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-4047-8

2018-11-21

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract:PurposeOver the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.MethodsA systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.ResultsThe meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.ConclusionThese results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
To drain or not to drain after thyroid surgery: a randomized controlled trial at a tertiary Hospital in East Africa

E Kalemera Ssenyondo,J Fualal,J Jombwe,M Galukande

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v13i3.33

Abstract:Introduction: In many facilities, drains are routinely inserted after thyroidectomy with the aim of preventing hematoma formation and accumulation of seroma. The continued use of drains may be based more on tradition rather than proven scientific evidence. Objective: To assess the benefit of drain use after thyroidectomy by determining; length of hospital stay, post operative pain and wound sepsis. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial, carried out at a tertiary national referral hospital (Mulago, Kampala). Over a 6 month period in 2011, we recruited 68 patients. Socio-demographic information and clinical parameters were recorded. Outcomes measures were evaluated. Data were double entered into epidata version 3.1.1 and analyzed using STATA version 10.0. Ethical approval was secured. Results: Mean age of participants was 46 and 43.7 years in drain and no drain arm respectively. Most participants were female. Mean duration of hospital stay after thyroidectomy was significantly higher among the drain arm as compared with the no drain arm [2.41 (± 0.89) vs 1.71 (± 0.76) days (p = 0.0008)]. One patient (drain arm) had wound infection. The pain score on the postoperative day was statistically higher among in the drain arm than the no drain arm [5.71 vs 2.53 (p = 0.001)]. Conclusion: Not inserting a drain post operatively after thyroid surgery was associated with short hospital stay and less operative pain. Results of this study do not support routine drainage after thyroid surgery.
Prophylactic Intra-abdominal Drainage is Associated With Lower Postoperative Complications in Patients With Crohn's Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Ming Duan,Lei Cao,Mengjie Lu,Tenghui Zhang,Qing Ji,Xian Guo,Zhen Guo,Qiong Wu,Yuxiu Liu,Jianfeng Gong,Weiming Zhu,Yi Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241232598

2024-02-11

Surgical Innovation

Abstract:Surgical Innovation, Ahead of Print. BackgroundProphylactic intraoperative drains have been shown not superior for patients underwent intestinal surgery. However, for patients with Crohn's disease (CD), this needs further exploration.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsProphylactic drainage may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in CD patients.

surgery
Fast‐track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer safely shortens hospital stay: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 356 patients

Adam Zeyara,Jacob Thomasson,Bodil Andersson,Bobby Tingstedt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12234

IF: 3.282

2024-06-05

World Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background Postoperative management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is still burdened by old traditions. All available data for fast‐track recovery in this setting are either very unspecific or underpowered. The aim of this study was to evaluate fast‐track recovery in this diagnosis‐specific context in a larger sample. Methods Electronic data sources were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fast‐track recovery and traditional management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in adults. A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines regulated the process. Quality and risk of bias assessments of individual RCTs were performed by means of the Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision criteria and the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay and risk of complications. Random or fixed effects modeling were applied as indicated. Outcomes were measured by mean difference and risk difference. Results Six RCTs with a total cohort of 356 patients were included. Results of our meta‐analysis showed significantly shortened length of hospital stay (mean difference −3.50 days [95% CI ‐4.51 to −2.49], p ≤ 0.00001), significantly less superficial and deep surgical‐site infections (risk differences −0.12 [95% CI −0.20, −0.05], p = 0.002 and −0.03 [95% CI −0.09, 0.03], and p = 0.032, respectively), and significantly fewer pulmonary complications (risk difference −0.10 [95% CI −0.17, −0.03], p = 0.004) in the fast‐track group. Conclusion This systematic review and meta‐analysis shows that fast‐track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer significantly shortened hospital stay in the studied cohort without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.

surgery
The utility of intraperitoneal drain placement after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in postoperative intraperitoneal abscess prevention

Jasim Alabbad,Hadeel Alhamly,Abdulaziz Alrubaiaan,Abdulaziz Kabli,Fawaz Abdulraheem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10869-w

2024-05-17

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:Perforated appendicitis is associated with postoperative development of intraperitoneal abscess. Intraperitoneal drain placement during appendectomy is thought to reduce the risk of developing postoperative intraperitoneal abscess. The aim of this study was to determine whether intraperitoneal drainage could reduce the incidence of intraperitoneal abscess formation after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.

surgery
Conventional versus enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in emergency gastrointestinal tract surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Ramy R. Rida,Abdallah B. Abdallah,Ashraf A. Helmy,Abdelmotaleb A. A.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_221_23

2024-01-01

The Egyptian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background Compared with elective operations, emergency abdominal surgery is more likely to result in perioperative morbidity and mortality. Implementation of care programs could be beneficial for such patients to decrease complication rates. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a complex perioperative approach that has proven its efficacy in multiple elective procedures. Nonetheless, its efficacy in emergency abdominal surgery has been questioned. Herein, we compared the ERAS and conventional approaches in the management of such patients. Patients and methods Sixty adult patients were enrolled in our randomized prospective trial, and they were assigned to two groups; the conventional and ERAS groups. The duration of hospitalization was the main outcome. Results Preoperative characteristics, presentation, and surgical operations were comparable between the two study groups. A perforated duodenal ulcer was the most common diagnosis and was treated by through and through suture with the omental patch (36%) followed by resection anastomosis (36%) in patients with ischemic loop or patients with severely injured loops, and primary repair in simple injury (28%). The hospitalization period decreased significantly in ERAS patients (5.9 vs. 10.5 days in the conventional group P <0.001). The ERAS protocol had a significant beneficial impact on postoperative recovery, which manifested in earlier nasogastric tube removal, drain removal, bowel sounds, bowel motion, and oral intake compared with the conventional group. The incidence of postoperative complications especially surgical site infection increased significantly with the conventional perioperative regimen (36.7% vs. 13.3% after ERAS P =0.034). Conclusion ERAS has multiple advantages over the conventional approach when implemented in emergency surgery patients and is recommended in emergency surgical practice.
Assessing the perioperative outcomes of abdominal drain omission after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy

Francesco Ditonno,Riccardo Bertolo,Alessandro Veccia,Sonia Costantino,Francesca Montanaro,Francesco Artoni,Alberto Baielli,Michele Boldini,Davide Brusa,Vincenzo De Marco,Filippo Migliorini,Antonio Benito Porcaro,Riccardo Rizzetto,Maria Angela Cerruto,Riccardo Autorino,Alessandro Antonelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59404-w

IF: 4.6

2024-04-16

Scientific Reports

Abstract:The study aimed to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement (vs. omission) on perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), focusing on complications, time to canalization, deambulation, and pain management. A prospectively-maintained institutional database was queried to get data of patients who underwent RAPN for renal masses between January 2018 and May 2023 at our Institution. Baseline, surgical, and postoperative data were collected. Retrieved patients were stratified based upon placement of abdominal drain (Y/N). Descriptive analyses comparing the two groups were conducted as appropriate.77 After adjusting for potential confounders, a logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate significant predictors of any grade and "major" complications. 342 patients were included: 192 patients in the "drain group" versus 150 patients in the "no-drain" group. Renal masses were larger ( p < 0.001) and at higher complexity (RENAL score, p = 0.01), in the drain group. Procedures in the drain group had statistically significantly longer operative time, ischemia time, and higher blood loss (all p -values < 0.001). The urinary collecting system was more likely involved compared to the no-drain group ( p = 0.01). At multivariate analysis, abdominal drainage was not a significant predictor of any grade (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.33–1.87) and major postoperative complications (OR 3.62, 95%CI 0.53–9.68). Patients in the drain group experienced a statistically significantly higher hemoglobin drop ( p < 0.01). Moreover, they exhibited statistically significant higher paracetamol consumption ( p < 0.001) and need for additional opioids ( p = 0.02). In summary, the study results suggest the safety of omitting drain placement and remark on the need for personalized decision-making, which considers patient and procedural factors.

multidisciplinary sciences
Drain vs. no drain in primary thyroid and parathyroid surgery

K Ayyash,M Khammash,S Tibblin

Abstract:The need for drainage after primary thyroid or parathyroid surgery was evaluated in a prospective study in which 100 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to drainage or no drainage. Seroma developed in the wound in seven of the 50 patients without drainage and in two of the 50 with drainage. There were no residual effects of the seromas, which resolved spontaneously. The incidence of wound complication was unrelated to the surgeon's opinion on the need for drainage. The study provided no statistical report for routine use of drains in primary thyroid or parathyroid surgery.
Laparoscopy: A Better Approach for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

Muhammad Faisal Murad,Rafeya Khan,Maham Tariq,Ayesha Akram,Ronald C Merrell,Asif Zafar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10953

2020-10-15

Cureus

Abstract:Background Laparoscopic surgery is becoming the gold standard for most abdominal surgeries in recent times. Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer (PDU), however, is still an area of debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair of PDU versus open repair. Methods In this cross-sectional study, patients were consecutively sampled. Out of 101 patients with clinically diagnosed PDU, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic Graham patch repair and 65 underwent open Graham patch repair in a tertiary care academic hospital. Open repair was via upper midline incision, and laparoscopic repair by the three-port technique. The following stages were calculated: operative time, duration of postoperative analgesia, time taken to mobilize, and patient length of stay after the operation. Results The mean operative time was somewhat longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the open repair group (74.01 vs 56.17 minutes, respectively). Mean postoperative analgesia requirement, time taken to mobilize, and hospital stay were significantly shorter after laparoscopy than after open repair (1.21 days, 9.32 hours, and 3.12 days vs 3.83 days, 16.20 hours, and 4.85 days, respectively). Three patients (8%) in the laparoscopy group and 35 (54%) in the open repair group had postoperative complications. Conclusions Laparoscopic repair of PDU is a safe approach and better than open repair in terms of operative time with the right level of expertise only, postoperative analgesia requirement, mobilization, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative respiratory and wound complications.
Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yi-Chao Wang,Peter Szatmary,Jing-Qiang Zhu,Jun-Jie Xiong,Wei Huang,Ilias Gomatos,Quentin M Nunes,Robert Sutton,Xu-Bao Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i8.2510

2015-02-28

Abstract: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.

No drains versus drains after perforated peptic ulcer repair: A randomized controlled trail

Drain or No Drain Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Unsolved Dilemma

Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

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

Adapted ERAS Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Emergency Surgery for Perforation Peritonitis-a Randomized Controlled Trial

Combined endoscopic and radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled PANDRA Trial (ISRCTN04937707)

Safety of Selective Operative Drainage After Pancreatic Resection

Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers

Study of Risk Factors Leading to Conversion of Laparoscopic Simple Closure to Open Surgery in Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Laparoscopic repair vs open repair for perforated peptic ulcers: Quality of life assessment

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair

To drain or not to drain after thyroid surgery: a randomized controlled trial at a tertiary Hospital in East Africa

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

Fast‐track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer safely shortens hospital stay: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 356 patients

The utility of intraperitoneal drain placement after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in postoperative intraperitoneal abscess prevention

Conventional versus enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in emergency gastrointestinal tract surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Assessing the perioperative outcomes of abdominal drain omission after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy

Drain vs. no drain in primary thyroid and parathyroid surgery

Laparoscopy: A Better Approach for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

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