Cargando…

Abandoning the blind legacy passed on horde of routine intra-abdominal drain insertion in cesarean section

INTRODUCTION: Cesarean section (CS) delivery is the most common major obstetrical surgical operation carried out in and is increasing in incidence throughout the world. The major involves some risks that might include: infection, coagulation problem, loss of blood, bowel or bladder injury, abnormali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fram, Kamil M., Saleh, Shawqi, Thikerallah, Fidaa, Fram, Farah K., Fram, Rand K., Darwish, Tamara, Haddad, Rana, Othman, Zeina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7258367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32508553
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pm.2020.95332
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Cesarean section (CS) delivery is the most common major obstetrical surgical operation carried out in and is increasing in incidence throughout the world. The major involves some risks that might include: infection, coagulation problem, loss of blood, bowel or bladder injury, abnormalities of the placenta in subsequent pregnancies. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of postoperative CS intra-abdominal drain insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on 245 patients in labor, at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jordan University Hospital, between January 2017 and January 2018. Participants were divided into two groups: group I including those who had abdominal drains insertion during surgery and group II including women who had no abdominal drain inserted before closure. All patients on both groups were term pregnancies, underwent elective vs. emergency CS, and had no subcutaneous drains inserted. RESULTS: Clinical and surgical parameters were comparable in both groups. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in group II, whereas specific postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in group I. Drain site infection was noted in 2 (1.6%), organ herniation in 2 (1.6%), drain avulsion in 2 (1.6%), severe pain at the site of insertion in 2 (1.6%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Routine prophylactic intra-abdominal drain insertion post CS has no benefits and therefore should be stopped.