Prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drainage after left pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ning Xia,Li Wang,Xing Huang,Zihe Wang,Junjie Xiong,Bole Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-24-351

2024-11-29

Gland Surgery

Abstract:Keywords: Left pancreatectomy (LP); intraperitoneal drain; major morbidity

surgery

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Bin Zhang,Hendi Maher,Xiu-Jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.032

2018-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has been widely used in the treatment of benign and low-grade pancreatic diseases. It is necessary to expand the current knowledge on the feasibility and safety of LPS for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by systematic reviewing the published studies and analyzing them by meta-analysis.METHODS:Original articles compared LPS with open pancreatic surgery (OPS) for PDAC, published from January 1994 to August 2017 were searched in medical databases. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay, retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs), and survival outcomes were compared.RESULTS:Fourteen studies with a total of 13174 patients (1705 in LPS and 11469 in OPS) were included for the meta-analysis. LPS showed less morbidity (RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.66-0.92, P < .01), blood loss (WMD = -298.05 ml, 95% CI, -482.98∼-113.12 ml; P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95%CI, -3.85∼-1.87; P < .01), more RLNs (WMD = 1.47, 95%CI: 0.15-2.78; P = .03) and comparable POPF (RR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.82-1.53, P = .50), operation time (WMD = 22.23 min; 95%CI: -19.56-64.01, P = .30), and 5-year overall survival (HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.80-1.06; P = .23) compared to OPS.CONCLUSION:LPS can be performed safely in carefully selected patients with PADC and would improve the surgical outcomes. Considering the limitation of study design, the conclusions should be interpret cautiously and warrant to be confirmed by randomized controlled studies.
Expanding Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy to Pancreatic-Head and Periampullary Malignancy: Major Findings Based on Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ke Chen,Xiao-long Liu,Yu Pan,Hendi Maher,Xian-fa Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y

2018-01-01

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Abstract Background Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes. Methods A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared. Results Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = − 372.96 ml, 95% CI, − 507.83~ − 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = − 197.49 ml, 95% CI, − 304.62~ − 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Pancreatic Resection

Chang-Wei Dou,Zhi-Kui Liu,Yu-Li Jia,Xin Zheng,Kang-Sheng Tu,Ying-Min Yao,Qing-Guang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i18.5719

2015-01-01

Abstract:AIM:To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.METHODS:PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg's funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.RESULTS:Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).CONCLUSION:Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.
Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Xiao-long Liu,Guang-yi Jiang,Di Wu,Hendi Maher,Xiu-jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9

2017-01-01

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear. Methods Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis. Results One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = −0.54 ml; 95% CI, −0.88 ~ −0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = −3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ −2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes. Conclusion Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
Prophylactic Intra-Peritoneal Drainage After Pancreatic Resection: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Xinxin Liu,Kai Chen,Xiangyu Chu,Guangnian Liu,Yinmo Yang,Xiaodong Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.658829

IF: 4.7

2021-05-20

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Introduction Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage has been considered to be an effective measure to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatectomy. However, routinely placed drainage during abdominal surgery may be unnecessary or even harmful to some patients, due to the possibility of increasing complications. And there is still controversy about the prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage after pancreatectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the incidence of complications after either pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) in the drain group and no-drain group. Methods Data were retrieved from four electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to December 2020, including the outcomes of individual treatment after PD and DP, mortality, morbidity, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leak, wound infection, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, intervened radiology (IR), and readmission. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and the criteria of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies included. Results We included 15 studies after strict screening. 13 studies with 16,648 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different surgery procedures, and 4 studies with 6,990 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different fistula risk. For patients undergoing PD, the drain group had lower mortality but higher rate of CR-POPF than the no-drain group. For patients undergoing DP, the drain group had higher rates of CR-POPF, wound infection and readmission. There were no significant differences in bile leak, hemorrhage, DGE, intra-abdominal abscess, and IR in either overall or each subgroup. For Low-risk subgroup, the rates of hemorrhage, DGE and morbidity were higher after drainage. For High-risk subgroup, the rate of hemorrhage was higher while the rates of reoperation and morbidity were lower in the drain group. Conclusions Intraperitoneal drainage may benefit some patients undergoing PD, especially those with high pancreatic fistula risk. For DP, current evidences suggest that routine drainage might not benefit patients, but no clear conclusions can be drawn because of the study limitations.

oncology
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.
The Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Combining with Different Type of Mesentericoportal Vein Resection and Reconstruction for Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma: a Chinese Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Guoqing Ouyang,Xiaosheng Zhong,Zhiwei Cai,Jianhua Liu,Shangyou Zheng,Defei Hong,Xinmin Yin,Jian Yu,Xueli Bai,Yahui Liu,Jun Liu,Xiaobing Huang,Yong Xiong,Jie Xu,Yunqiang Cai,Zhongyi Jiang,Rufu Chen,Bing Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09901-2

2023-01-01

Abstract:Background The results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy combining with mesentericoportal vein resection and reconstruction (LPD-MPVRs) for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma are rarely reported. The aim of present study was to explore the short- and long-term outcomes of different type of LPD-MPVRs. Methods Patients who underwent LPD-MPVRs in 14 Chinese high-volume pancreatic centers between June 2014 and December 2020 were selected and compared. Results In total, 142 patients were included and were divided into primary closure ( n = 56), end-end anastomosis ( n = 43), or interposition graft ( n = 43). Median overall survival (OS) and median progress-free survival (PFS) between primary closure and end-end anastomosis had no difference (both P > 0.05). As compared to primary closure and end-end anastomosis, interposition graft had the worst median OS (12 months versus 19 months versus 17 months, P = 0.001) and the worst median PFS (6 months versus 15 months versus 12 months, P < 0.000). As compared to primary closure, interposition graft had almost double risk in major morbidity (16.3 percent versus 8.9 percent) and about triple risk (10 percent versus 3.6 percent) in 90-day mortality, while End-end anastomosis had only one fourth major morbidity (2.3 percent versus 8.9 percent). Multivariate analysis revealed postoperation hospital stay, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, number of positive lymph nodes had negative impact on OS, while R0, R1 surgical margin had protective effect on OS. Postoperative hospital stay had negative impact on PFS, while primary closure, end-end anastomosis, short-term vascular patency, and short-term vascular stenosis positively related to PFS. Conclusions In LPD-MPVRs, interposition graft had the worst OS, the worst PFS, the highest rate of major morbidity, and the highest rate of 90-day mortality. While there were no differences in OS and PFS between primary closure and end-end anastomosis.
Effect of passive versus active abdominal drainage on wound infection after pancreatectomy: A meta‐analysis

Yanchun Han,Zuowei Wu,Jiafan Song,Qiang Zhang,Lijuan Wei,Huimin Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14755

2024-03-09

International Wound Journal

Abstract:Following pancreatic resection, there may be a variety of complications, including wound infection, haemorrhage, and abdominal infection. The placement of drainage channels during operation may decrease the chances of postoperative complications. However, what kind of drainage can decrease the rate of postoperative complications is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the efficacy of both active and passive drainage for post‐operation wound complications. From the beginning of the database until November 2023, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Pubmed database have been searched. The two authors collected 2524 related studies from 3 data bases for importation into Endnote software, and 8 finished trials were screened against the exclusion criteria. Passive drainage can decrease the incidence of superficial wound infection in postoperative patients with pancreas operation (Odds Ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06–1.60 p = 0.01); No statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of deep infections among the two groups (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.68–3.36 p = 0.31); No statistical significance was found for the rate of haemorrhage after active drainage on the pancreas compared with that of passive drainage (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29–1.77 p = 0.47); No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of death after operation for patients who had received a pancreas operation in active or passive drainage (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57–1.42 p = 0.65); On the basis of existing evidence, the use of passive abdominal drainage reduces postoperative surface wound infections in patients. But there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of severe complications, haemorrhage after surgery, or mortality. However, because of the limited sample size of this meta‐analysis, it is necessary to have more high‐quality research with a large sample size to confirm the findings.

dermatology,surgery
Is It Necessary To Place Prophylactically an Abdominal Drain To Prevent Surgical Site Infection in Abdominal Operations? A Systematic Meta-Review.

Xiuwen Wu,Weiliang Tian,Nejla Zeynep Kubilay,Jianan Ren,Jieshou Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2016.082

2016-01-01

Surgical Infections

Abstract:Background: There is still uncertainty regarding the use of prophylactic drainage in abdominal surgical procedures. This meta-review aimed to summarize systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating abdominal drain placement in patients undergoing abdominal procedures, with a focus on surgical site infection and death from infections. Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization Regional Medical Databases, and African Index Medicus were reviewed. Results: Fifteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning prophylactic abdominal drainage in abdominal operations were included in this analysis. The median score of methodologic quality was eight (6-10). The majority of meta-analyses found no benefits of prophylactic drainage in reducing surgical site infection, but no significant differences were identified. Three studies demonstrated a significant difference in favor of no drainage, with two regarding cholecystectomy and one on appendectomy (p<0.05). The quality of evidence provided by each review was mainly low and very low. Conclusions: Most reviews fail to detect an increased incidence of surgical site infection in the setting of drainage placement but also fail to attribute any specific benefits to the presence of a drain in abdominal procedures.
Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis

Hongsheng Wu,Biling Liao,Tiansheng Cao,Tengfei Ji,Yumei Luo,Jianbin Huang,Keqiang Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03500-8

2024-11-23

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Peritoneal drainage (PD) following laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has long been considered beneficial for appendicitis patients, especially those with complicated appendicitis. However, recent research has raised doubts about the advantages of PD, as it not only fails to reduce postoperative complications but also prolongs the operative duration and hospital stay and incurs higher medical expenses. Given this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether drainage is necessary after LA for complicated appendicitis. This meta-analysis had registered in PROSPERO(ID: CRD42023472382).

gastroenterology & hepatology
Early vs late drain removal after pancreatic resection—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Andrew Guan Ru Wu,Ramkumar Mohan,Khi Yung Fong,Zhaojin Chen,Glenn Kunnath Bonney,Alfred Wei Chieh Kow,Iyer Shridhar Ganpathi,Ning Qi Pang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-03053-6

2023-08-18

Abstract:Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing post-operative drain management is a potential strategy in reducing this major complication.

surgery
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
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.
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.
Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy is As Safe and Feasible As Open Procedure: a Meta-Analysis.

Kun Xie,Yi-Ping Zhu,Xiad-Wu Xu,Ke Chen,Jia-Fei Yan,Yi-Ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i16.1959

2012-01-01

Abstract:AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed.RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid in-take, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I-2 = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I-2 = 55.6%].CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.
The effect of placing prophylactic abdominal drainage tube after hepatobiliary surgery on postoperative infection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Lingbo Liang,Xiangping Liu,Feng Liu,Qiaoli Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14579

2024-02-01

International Wound Journal

Abstract:Whether prophylactic abdominal drainage tube is routinely placed in patients after hepatobiliary surgery remains controversial. To evaluate the effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage tube placement after hepatobiliary surgery on postoperative infection. Randomized controlled trials on the placement of prophylactic abdominal drainage tube after hepatobiliary surgery were collected through a computerized search of PubMed, Embase, Conchrane Library and Web of Science databases, with a time range from the establishment of the database to August 2023. After two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Finally, 13 studies were included, including 3620 patients, and the results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative infection rate between the drainage group (1840 patients and the non‐drainage group [1783 patients] [relative risk, RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.94–1.47, p = 0.16]. Compared with the drainage group, the incidence of infectious abdominal fluid in the non‐drainage group was lower (RR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.57–2.80, p

dermatology,surgery
Total Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis with Meta-Analysis

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Yi-ping Mou,Chao-jie Huang,Jia-fei Yan,Ren-chao Zhang,Miao-zun Zhang,Guan-yu Wang,Xian-fa Wang,Qi-long Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-20225/v1

2020-01-01

Abstract:Abstract Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) have been used in the treatment of benign and low-grade diseases on the pancreatic head. It is necessary to expand the current knowledge on the feasibility and safety of TLPD for PDAC treatment. We aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of TLPD for patients with PDAC by comparing them with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Methods Data regarding patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for PDAC treatment from January 2013 to January 2019 in our hospital were obtained. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recoveries, and survival outcomes were compared. To overcome selection bias, we performed a 1:1 match using propensity score matching (PSM) between TLPD and OPD. We also conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results The original cohort included 276 patients (TLPD; 98 patients, OPD; 178 patients). After PSM, there were 89 patients in each group and the patient demographics were well matched. Of the 98 patients who underwent TLPD, 8 (8.2%) required conversions to laparotomies. Compared to OPD, TLPD could be performed with longer operative times, had less blood loss, and had lower overall morbidities. Regarding oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumor size, R0 resection rates and tumor stages between groups. However, TLPD had an advantage over OPD in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p < 0.01). There were no statistically signiﬁcant differences between the groups in recurrence patterns, and the 3-year recurrence-free and overall survival rates were comparable between the two groups. Meta-analysis further confirmed that the TLPD were associated with longer operative times, less blood loss, shorter hospitalizations, lower morbidities, and a greater number of retrieved lymph nodes. Conclusions TLPD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC treatments. Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after TLPD are superior, or not inferior, to OPD, and could be a promising alternative to open surgery for PDAC treatments. Our findings should be further evaluated by multicenter or randomized controlled trials.
Early Versus Late Drain Removal in Patients after Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ting Li,Jiancheng Zhang,Jun Zeng,Mingwei Sun,Dihuan Li,Ting Yuan,Ruipeng Zhang,Hua Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.047

IF: 2.808

2022-01-01

Asian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Whether early or late drain removal (EDR/LDR) is better for patients after pancreatic resection remains controversial. We aim to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of early or late drain removal in patients who undergo pancreatic resection. We searched seven databases from January 1, 2000, through September 2021, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing EDR vs. LDR in patients after pancreatic resection. We separately pooled effect estimates across RCTs and observational studies. Finally, we included 4 RCTs with 711 patients and 8 nonRCTs with 7207 patients. Based on the pooled RCT data, compared to LDR, EDR reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) (RR: -2.59, 95% CI: -4.13 to -1.06) and hospital cost (RR: -1022.27, 95% CI: -1990.39 to -54.19). Based on the pooled nonRCT data, EDR may reduce the incidence of all complications (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.63), pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.45), wound infection (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.06 to 5.45)), reoperation (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.96) and hospital readmission (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.69). There was an uncertain effect on mortality (OR from pooled nonRCTs: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.41 to 2.53) and delayed gastric emptying (RR from pooled RCTs: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.41). The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that early drain removal is associated with lower hospital cost, is safe and may reduce the incidence of complications compared to late drain removal in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Efficacy and safety of early drain removal following pancreatic resections: a meta-analysis

Kai Chen,Zonghao Liu,Bohan Yang,Yongsu Ma,Shupeng Zhang,Zhijiang Shao,Yinmo Yang,Xiaodong Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.005

IF: 3.842

2023-05-01

HPB

Abstract:BACKGROUND: No consensus was reached with regard to the effect of EDR on postoperative outcomes after pancreatic surgery. The meta-analysis was designed to explore the efficacy and safety of early drain removal (EDR).METHODS: Systematic literature search was performed. Data extraction and correction were performed by three researchers. For dichotomous and continuous outcomes, we calculated the pooled risk difference and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The heterogeneity of included studies was evaluated using Cochran's Q and I<sup>2</sup> test. The stratified analyses of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) were performed.RESULTS: A total of 10 studies including 3 RCTs and 7 non RCTs were included for meta-analysis, among which 1780 patients with EDR and 5613 patients with late drain removal (LDR) were enrolled. The meta-analysis of both all the available studies and studies only with selected low risk patients indicated that EDR group had significantly lower incidences of Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and total complications for both PD and DP. However, no advantages of EDR were observed in the meta-analysis of the 3 RCTs. In addition, EDR was associated with a lower incidence of intra-abdominal infection after PD. While for DP, EDR group had decreased risk of delayed gastric emptying and re-operation, and shorter postoperative in-hospital stay.CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis demonstrates that EDR is effective and safe for both PD and DP considering POPF and total complications, especially for patients with low concentration of postoperative drain fluid amylase.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
[Experience on Postoperative Complications of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy].

C Lu,W,Y P Mou,Y C Zhou,Q C Zhu,H L Shao,K Chen,S D Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2018.11.006

2018-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To summarize the incidence and characteristics of postoperative complications after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy(LPD), and to share our experience on management of complications. Methods: The clinical data of 320 LPD performed by a single team in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital and Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital between September 2012 and September 2017 were retrospectively analyzed, among which there were 196 males and 124 females with age of (60.2±11.6) years old.There were 306 patients who underwent standard LPD, and 14 patients who underwent extended LPD. The patients were divided into 2 groups of former 160 LPD and later 160 LPD according to the time order. By analyzing the differences of clinical outcomes between the two groups, especially focusing on the incidence of postoperative complications.The experience on management of complications was concluded. The prior surgical history of latter group was significantly higher than the former group(30.0%(48/160)vs. 18.8%(30/160), χ(2)=5.49, P=0.019), and the rest of baseline characteristics remained the comparable (P>0.05). For resectable lesions, LPD was performed by "No back" approach, following the principle of "From distal to cephalad, from ventral to dorsal, and from left to right" . As for the borderline resectable patients, LPD was performed by "Easy first" strategy. Student t test, χ(2) test or Fisher test was used to analyzed the data between the two groups respectively. Results: Of 320 LPD patients, 306 cases underwent standard LPD, 14 cases underwent LPD with resection of other organs.There were 278 LPD cases who followed "No back" approach, and 42 cases who followed "Easy first" strategy because of difficulty in creating the retro-pancreatic tunnel. And the overall morbidity was 32.2%(103/320) with reoperation rate of 5.3%(17/320). The perioperative mortality was 0.6%(2/320). The operation time of latter group was ((346.6±48.8)minutes), which was shorter than that of former group((358.0±54.4)minutes)(t=1.97, P=0.048). The blood loss of former and latter group remained comparable((207.9±135.8)ml vs.(189.6±121.4)ml, P=0.205). However, in subgroup analysis, the patients with blood loss less <200 ml of latter group decreased significantly from 59.4%(95/160) to 47.5%(76/160)(χ(2)=4.53, P=0.033). The overall morbidity of latter group was 28.8%(46/160), indicated a decrease from 35.6%(57/160) of former group without significant difference(P=0.188). Moreover, Grade A/B/C pancreatic fistula rate, Grade A/C bile leakage rate, Grade B/C postoperative hemorrhage rate of the later group tended to decrease, although they also didn't reach a significant difference. However, the abdominal infection rate decreased significantly(χ(2)=3.93, P=0.047). The length of hospital stay remained comparable(P=0.156). Conclusions: The most common complications after LPD were postoperative hemorrhage and pancreatic fistula. With specialized team and accumulated experience, the morbidity can decrease progressively by analyzing the leading cause and improving the technical skills.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drainage after left pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Expanding Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy to Pancreatic-Head and Periampullary Malignancy: Major Findings Based on Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Pancreatic Resection

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

Prophylactic Intra-Peritoneal Drainage After Pancreatic Resection: An Updated Meta-Analysis

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

The Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Combining with Different Type of Mesentericoportal Vein Resection and Reconstruction for Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma: a Chinese Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Effect of passive versus active abdominal drainage on wound infection after pancreatectomy: A meta‐analysis

Is It Necessary To Place Prophylactically an Abdominal Drain To Prevent Surgical Site Infection in Abdominal Operations? A Systematic Meta-Review.

Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis

Early vs late drain removal after pancreatic resection—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Drain or No Drain Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Unsolved Dilemma

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

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

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy is As Safe and Feasible As Open Procedure: a Meta-Analysis.

The effect of placing prophylactic abdominal drainage tube after hepatobiliary surgery on postoperative infection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Total Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis with Meta-Analysis

Early Versus Late Drain Removal in Patients after Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Efficacy and safety of early drain removal following pancreatic resections: a meta-analysis

[Experience on Postoperative Complications of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy].