Cargando…
The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and benefits of abdominal drains for pancreatic resections have demonstrated inconsistent results. We thus performed a sys...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193685/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25291982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-76 |
_version_ | 1782339019276812288 |
---|---|
author | Nitsche, Ulrich Müller, Tara C Späth, Christoph Cresswell, Lynne Wilhelm, Dirk Friess, Helmut Michalski, Christoph W Kleeff, Jörg |
author_facet | Nitsche, Ulrich Müller, Tara C Späth, Christoph Cresswell, Lynne Wilhelm, Dirk Friess, Helmut Michalski, Christoph W Kleeff, Jörg |
author_sort | Nitsche, Ulrich |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and benefits of abdominal drains for pancreatic resections have demonstrated inconsistent results. We thus performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analyzed outcomes of pancreatic resections with and without intraoperative placement of drains. METHODS: A database search according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed for studies on pancreatic resection with and without intraperitoneal drainage. The subgroup ‘pancreaticoduodenectomy’ was analyzed separately. The quality of studies was assessed using the MINORS and STROBE criteria. Pooled estimates of morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: Only two randomized trials were identified. Their results were contradictory. We thus included six further, retrospective studies in the meta-analysis. However, with I(2) = 68% for any kind of complication, the estimate of inter-study heterogeneity was high. While overall morbidity after any kind of pancreatic resection was lower without drains (p = 0.04), there was no significant difference in mortality rates. In contrast, pooled estimates of outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy demonstrated no differences in morbidity (p = 0.40) but increased rates of intraabdominal abscesses (p = 0.04) and mortality (p = 0.04) without intraperitoneal drainage. CONCLUSION: Although drains are associated with slightly increased morbidity for pancreatic resections, routine omission of drains cannot be advocated, especially after pancreaticoduodenectomy. While selective drainage seems reasonable, further efforts to generate more reliable data are questionable because of the current studies and the presumed small differences in outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration number CRD42014007497. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4193685 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41936852014-10-11 The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis Nitsche, Ulrich Müller, Tara C Späth, Christoph Cresswell, Lynne Wilhelm, Dirk Friess, Helmut Michalski, Christoph W Kleeff, Jörg BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and benefits of abdominal drains for pancreatic resections have demonstrated inconsistent results. We thus performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analyzed outcomes of pancreatic resections with and without intraoperative placement of drains. METHODS: A database search according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed for studies on pancreatic resection with and without intraperitoneal drainage. The subgroup ‘pancreaticoduodenectomy’ was analyzed separately. The quality of studies was assessed using the MINORS and STROBE criteria. Pooled estimates of morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: Only two randomized trials were identified. Their results were contradictory. We thus included six further, retrospective studies in the meta-analysis. However, with I(2) = 68% for any kind of complication, the estimate of inter-study heterogeneity was high. While overall morbidity after any kind of pancreatic resection was lower without drains (p = 0.04), there was no significant difference in mortality rates. In contrast, pooled estimates of outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy demonstrated no differences in morbidity (p = 0.40) but increased rates of intraabdominal abscesses (p = 0.04) and mortality (p = 0.04) without intraperitoneal drainage. CONCLUSION: Although drains are associated with slightly increased morbidity for pancreatic resections, routine omission of drains cannot be advocated, especially after pancreaticoduodenectomy. While selective drainage seems reasonable, further efforts to generate more reliable data are questionable because of the current studies and the presumed small differences in outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration number CRD42014007497. BioMed Central 2014-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4193685/ /pubmed/25291982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-76 Text en Copyright © 2014 Nitsche et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nitsche, Ulrich Müller, Tara C Späth, Christoph Cresswell, Lynne Wilhelm, Dirk Friess, Helmut Michalski, Christoph W Kleeff, Jörg The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193685/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25291982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-76 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nitscheulrich theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mullertarac theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT spathchristoph theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cresswelllynne theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wilhelmdirk theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT friesshelmut theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT michalskichristophw theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kleeffjorg theevidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nitscheulrich evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mullertarac evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT spathchristoph evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cresswelllynne evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wilhelmdirk evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT friesshelmut evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT michalskichristophw evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kleeffjorg evidencebaseddilemmaofintraperitonealdrainageforpancreaticresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |