Cargando…
Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5660819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29158731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6253898 |
_version_ | 1783274364408430592 |
---|---|
author | Emile, Sameh Hany Abd El-Hamed, Tito M. |
author_facet | Emile, Sameh Hany Abd El-Hamed, Tito M. |
author_sort | Emile, Sameh Hany |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical utility of prophylactic drainage and its proper indications. METHODS: An organized literature search was conducted querying electronic databases and Google Scholar. Articles evaluating the role of routine prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomosis were included and divided into two categories: articles supporting the use of drains (prodrainage) and articles disputing routine drainage (antidrainage). RESULTS: There were seven systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, one Cochrane review, one randomized controlled trial, and six prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Six studies supported prophylactic drainage of colorectal anastomoses; the quality of these studies ranged between grade II and IV. Nine studies recommended against the use of prophylactic drainage, six studies were grade I, one was grade II, and two were grade IV. CONCLUSION: Since level I evidence studies including well-designed randomized trials and meta-analyses recommended against the use of pelvic drainage as a routine practice after colorectal anastomoses, we conclude no significant impact of routine drainage on the risk of anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomoses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5660819 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56608192017-11-20 Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature Emile, Sameh Hany Abd El-Hamed, Tito M. Gastroenterol Res Pract Review Article BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical utility of prophylactic drainage and its proper indications. METHODS: An organized literature search was conducted querying electronic databases and Google Scholar. Articles evaluating the role of routine prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomosis were included and divided into two categories: articles supporting the use of drains (prodrainage) and articles disputing routine drainage (antidrainage). RESULTS: There were seven systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, one Cochrane review, one randomized controlled trial, and six prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Six studies supported prophylactic drainage of colorectal anastomoses; the quality of these studies ranged between grade II and IV. Nine studies recommended against the use of prophylactic drainage, six studies were grade I, one was grade II, and two were grade IV. CONCLUSION: Since level I evidence studies including well-designed randomized trials and meta-analyses recommended against the use of pelvic drainage as a routine practice after colorectal anastomoses, we conclude no significant impact of routine drainage on the risk of anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomoses. Hindawi 2017 2017-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5660819/ /pubmed/29158731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6253898 Text en Copyright © 2017 Sameh Hany Emile and Tito M. Abd El-Hamed. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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 | Review Article Emile, Sameh Hany Abd El-Hamed, Tito M. Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature |
title | Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature |
title_full | Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature |
title_fullStr | Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature |
title_full_unstemmed | Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature |
title_short | Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature |
title_sort | routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses: an evidence-based review of the current literature |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5660819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29158731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6253898 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT emilesamehhany routinedrainageofcolorectalanastomosesanevidencebasedreviewofthecurrentliterature AT abdelhamedtitom routinedrainageofcolorectalanastomosesanevidencebasedreviewofthecurrentliterature |