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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Sep;266(3):421-431.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002375.

A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial of Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Routine Intraperitoneal Drainage

George Van Buren 2nd  1 , Mark Bloomston, Carl R Schmidt, Stephen W Behrman, Nicholas J Zyromski, Chad G Ball, Katherine A Morgan, Steven J Hughes, Paul J Karanicolas, John D Allendorf, Charles M Vollmer Jr, Quan Ly, Kimberly M Brown, Vic Velanovich, Jordan M Winter, Amy L McElhany, Peter Muscarella 2nd, Christian Max Schmidt, Michael G House, Elijah Dixon, Mary E Dillhoff, Jose G Trevino, Julie Hallet, Natalie S G Coburn, Attila Nakeeb, Kevin E Behrns, Aaron R Sasson, Eugene P Ceppa, Sherif R Z Abdel-Misih, Taylor S Riall, Eric J Silberfein, Edwin C Ellison, David B Adams, Cary Hsu, Hop S Tran Cao, Somala Mohammed, Nicole Villafañe-Ferriol, Omar Barakat, Nader N Massarweh, Christy Chai, Jose E Mendez-Reyes, Andrew Fang, Eunji Jo, Qianxing Mo, William E Fisher
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial of Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Routine Intraperitoneal Drainage

George Van Buren 2nd et al. Ann Surg. 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that distal pancreatectomy (DP) without intraperitoneal drainage does not affect the frequency of grade 2 or higher grade complications.

Background: The use of routine intraperitoneal drains during DP is controversial. Prior to this study, no prospective trial focusing on DP without intraperitoneal drainage has been reported.

Methods: Patients undergoing DP for all causes at 14 high-volume pancreas centers were preoperatively randomized to placement of a drain or no drain. Complications and their severity were tracked for 60 days and mortality for 90 days. The study was powered to detect a 15% positive or negative difference in the rate of grade 2 or higher grade complications. All data were collected prospectively and source documents were reviewed at the coordinating center to confirm completeness and accuracy.

Results: A total of 344 patients underwent DP with (N = 174) and without (N = 170) the use of intraperitoneal drainage. There were no differences between cohorts in demographics, comorbidities, pathology, pancreatic duct size, pancreas texture, or operative technique. There was no difference in the rate of grade 2 or higher grade complications (44% vs. 42%, P = 0.80). There was no difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (18% vs 12%, P = 0.11) or mortality (0% vs 1%, P = 0.24). DP without routine intraperitoneal drainage was associated with a higher incidence of intra-abdominal fluid collection (9% vs 22%, P = 0.0004). There was no difference in the frequency of postoperative imaging, percutaneous drain placement, reoperation, readmission, or quality of life scores.

Conclusions: This prospective randomized multicenter trial provides evidence that clinical outcomes are comparable in DP with or without intraperitoneal drainage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types