Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017;34(5):411-420.
doi: 10.1159/000455246. Epub 2017 Mar 25.

Abandoning Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Hepatic Surgery: 10 Years of No-Drain Policy in an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Environment

Affiliations

Abandoning Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Hepatic Surgery: 10 Years of No-Drain Policy in an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Environment

Edgar M Wong-Lun-Hing et al. Dig Surg. 2017.

Abstract

Background: Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage after hepatic surgery is still being debated, as it may be unnecessary, possibly harmful, and uncomfortable for patients. This study evaluated the safety of a no-drain policy after liver resection within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme.

Methods: All hepatectomies performed without prophylactic drainage during 2005-2014 were included. Primary end points were resection-surface-related (RSR) morbidity, defined as the presence of postoperative biloma, hemorrhage or abscess, and reinterventions. Secondary end points were length of stay, total postoperative morbidity, the composite end point of liver surgery-specific complications, readmissions, and 90-day mortality. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for RSR morbidity. A systematic search was performed to compare the results of this study to literature.

Results: A total of 538 resections were included in the study. The RSR complication and reintervention rate was 15 and 12%, respectively. Major liver resection (≥3 segments) was an independent risk factor for the development of RSR morbidity (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.61-5.62; p = 0.001) and need for RSR reintervention (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.59-5.73; p = 0.001).

Conclusion: RSR morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates after liver surgery without prophylactic drainage in patients, treated within an ERAS programme, were comparable to previously published data. A no-drain policy after partial hepatectomy seems safe and feasible.

Keywords: Abdominal drainage; Drain; Liver surgery; No-drain; Prophylactic drainage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search and inclusion of relevant studies.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Belghiti J, et al. Drainage after elective hepatic resection. A randomized trial. Ann Surg. 1993;218:748–753. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Turner MGG. A note on the abuses and dangers of drainage tubes: with special reference to the danger of serious hæmorrhage from the erosion of large arteries. Br J Surg. 1915;3:552–557.
    1. Bona S, Gavelli A, Huguet C. The role of abdominal drainage after major hepatic resection. Am J Surg. 1994;167:593–595. - PubMed
    1. Fuster J, et al. Abdominal drainage after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: a randomized controlled study. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004;51:536–540. - PubMed
    1. Aldameh A, McCall JL, Koea JB. Is routine placement of surgical drains necessary after elective hepatectomy? Results from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9:667–671. - PubMed