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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Morris, David L.
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