Cargando…
Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain?
Purpose: A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine if intra-abdominal drainage catheters are necessary after elective liver resection. Patients and Methods: Between April 1992 and April 1994, 120 patients subjected to liver resection, stratified by extent of resection and by surgeon...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
1998
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423910/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/12974 |
_version_ | 1782156210640781312 |
---|---|
author | Morris, David L. |
author_facet | Morris, David L. |
author_sort | Morris, David L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine if intra-abdominal drainage catheters are necessary after elective liver resection. Patients and Methods: Between April 1992 and April 1994, 120 patients subjected to liver resection, stratified by extent of resection and by surgeon, were randomized to receive or not receive operative closed-suction drainage. Operative blood loss was not an exclusion criteria, and no patient who consented to the study was excluded. Results: Eighty-seven patients (73%) had resection of one hepatic lobe or more (27 lobectomies, 54 trisegmentectomies, and 6 bilobar atypical resections) and 33 had less than a lobectomy (8 wedge resections or enucleations, 9 segmentectomies, and 16 bisegmentectomies). Eighty-four patients (70%) had metastatic cancer and 36 patients (30%) had primary liver pathology. There were no differences in outcome, including length of hospital stay (no drain, 13.4 ± 0.9 days; drain, 13.1 ± 0.8 days; P not significant [NS]), mortality (no drain, 3.3%; drain, 3.3%), complication rate (no drain, 43%; drain, 48%; n= NS), or requirement for subsequent percutaneous drainage (no drain, 18%; drain, 8%; P= NS). All infected collections (n= 3) occured in operatively drained patients. Two other complications were directly related to the operatively placed drains. One patient developed a subcutaneous abscess at the drain site, and a second developed a subcutaneous drain tract tumor recurrence as the only current site of recurrence. Conclusion: In the first 50 consecutive resections performed since the conclusion of this trial, only 4 patients (8%) have required subsequent percutaneous drainage. We conclude that abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection, |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2423910 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 1998 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-24239102008-07-08 Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? Morris, David L. HPB Surg Research Article Purpose: A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine if intra-abdominal drainage catheters are necessary after elective liver resection. Patients and Methods: Between April 1992 and April 1994, 120 patients subjected to liver resection, stratified by extent of resection and by surgeon, were randomized to receive or not receive operative closed-suction drainage. Operative blood loss was not an exclusion criteria, and no patient who consented to the study was excluded. Results: Eighty-seven patients (73%) had resection of one hepatic lobe or more (27 lobectomies, 54 trisegmentectomies, and 6 bilobar atypical resections) and 33 had less than a lobectomy (8 wedge resections or enucleations, 9 segmentectomies, and 16 bisegmentectomies). Eighty-four patients (70%) had metastatic cancer and 36 patients (30%) had primary liver pathology. There were no differences in outcome, including length of hospital stay (no drain, 13.4 ± 0.9 days; drain, 13.1 ± 0.8 days; P not significant [NS]), mortality (no drain, 3.3%; drain, 3.3%), complication rate (no drain, 43%; drain, 48%; n= NS), or requirement for subsequent percutaneous drainage (no drain, 18%; drain, 8%; P= NS). All infected collections (n= 3) occured in operatively drained patients. Two other complications were directly related to the operatively placed drains. One patient developed a subcutaneous abscess at the drain site, and a second developed a subcutaneous drain tract tumor recurrence as the only current site of recurrence. Conclusion: In the first 50 consecutive resections performed since the conclusion of this trial, only 4 patients (8%) have required subsequent percutaneous drainage. We conclude that abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection, Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1998 /pmc/articles/PMC2423910/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/12974 Text en Copyright © 1998 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Morris, David L. Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? |
title | Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? |
title_full | Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? |
title_fullStr | Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? |
title_full_unstemmed | Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? |
title_short | Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain? |
title_sort | liver resection: to drain or not to drain? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423910/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/12974 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morrisdavidl liverresectiontodrainornottodrain |