Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution
- PMID: 23360918
- PMCID: PMC5749628
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182813806
Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution
Abstract
Background: The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection was published from our institution approximately 10 years ago. The current study sought to evaluate the evolution of practice over the last 5 years.
Patients and methods: Between June 2006 and June 2011, there were 1122 resections performed. Six surgeons were evenly grouped and compared by practice pattern: routine drainers (drains placed > 95%), selective drainers, and routine nondrainers (drains placed ∼15%). Prospectively recorded preoperative, operative, and morbidity data were assessed in uni- and multivariate models.
Results: Our operative drainage rate was 49% and decreased over time (62% 2006-2008 vs 37% 2009-2011, P < 0.001). Patients without operative drains had significantly lower grade ≥3 overall morbidity (26% vs 33%; P = 0.01), shorter hospital stays (7 vs 8 days; P < 0.01), fewer readmissions (20% vs 27%; P = 0.01), and lower rates of grade ≥3 pancreatic fistula (16% vs 20%; P = 0.05). Similar reoperation (both <1%), interventional radiology procedures (15% vs 19%; P = 0.1), and mortality rates (2% vs 1%; P = 0.3) were seen in both groups. There were no differences between the routine drainers group (n = 248) and the nondrainers group (n = 478) in grade ≥3 fistula or need for interventional radiology-guided procedures.
Conclusions: In this study, operative drains were used nearly half of the time and were associated with longer hospital stay, and higher grade ≥3 morbidity, fistula, and readmission rates. They did not decrease the need for reintervention or alter mortality rates. Routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection could be safely abandoned.
Conflict of interest statement
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
Comment in
-
Operative Drainage Following Pancreatic Resections: We Need More Evidence.Ann Surg. 2015 Jun;261(6):e160. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000539. Ann Surg. 2015. PMID: 24424143 No abstract available.
-
Reply to Letter: "Operative Drainage Following Pancreatic Resections: We Need More Evidence".Ann Surg. 2015 Jun;261(6):e160. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000540. Ann Surg. 2015. PMID: 24424151 No abstract available.
References
-
- Levy M. Intraperitoneal drainage. Am J Surg. 1984;147:309–314. - PubMed
-
- Fong Y, Brennan MF, Brown K, et al. Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection. Am J Surg. 1996;171:158–162. - PubMed
-
- Budd DC, Cochran RC, Fouty WJ., Jr Cholecystectomy with and without drainage. A randomized, prospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg. 1982;143:307–309. - PubMed
-
- Alvarez Uslar R, Molina H, Torres O, et al. Total gastrectomy with or without abdominal drains. A prospective randomized trial. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2005;97:562–569. - PubMed
-
- Kim J, Lee J, Hyung WJ, et al. Gastric cancer surgery without drains: a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:727–732. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
