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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nitsche, Ulrich, Müller, Tara C, Späth, Christoph, Cresswell, Lynne, Wilhelm, Dirk, Friess, Helmut, Michalski, Christoph W, Kleeff, Jörg
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