Cargando…

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections

Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional dra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dezfouli, Sepehr Abbasi, Ünal, Umut Kaan, Ghamarnejad, Omid, Khajeh, Elias, Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh, Sadeq, Ramouz, Ali, Salehpour, Roozbeh, Golriz, Mohammad, Chang, De-Hua, Mieth, Markus, Hoffmann, Katrin, Probst, Pascal, Mehrabi, Arianeb
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7862226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33542274
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82333-x
_version_ 1783647243344019456
author Dezfouli, Sepehr Abbasi
Ünal, Umut Kaan
Ghamarnejad, Omid
Khajeh, Elias
Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh, Sadeq
Ramouz, Ali
Salehpour, Roozbeh
Golriz, Mohammad
Chang, De-Hua
Mieth, Markus
Hoffmann, Katrin
Probst, Pascal
Mehrabi, Arianeb
author_facet Dezfouli, Sepehr Abbasi
Ünal, Umut Kaan
Ghamarnejad, Omid
Khajeh, Elias
Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh, Sadeq
Ramouz, Ali
Salehpour, Roozbeh
Golriz, Mohammad
Chang, De-Hua
Mieth, Markus
Hoffmann, Katrin
Probst, Pascal
Mehrabi, Arianeb
author_sort Dezfouli, Sepehr Abbasi
collection PubMed
description Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional drainage, wound infection, total complications, and length of hospital stay were the outcomes of interest. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (MDs) were computed by the inverse variance method. Summary effect measures are presented together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which was mostly moderate for evaluated outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and five non-randomized trials including 5,050 patients were included. Bile leakage rate was higher in the drain group (OR: 2.32; 95% CI 1.18–4.55; p = 0.01) and interventional drains were inserted more frequently in this group (OR: 1.53; 95% CI 1.11–2.10; p = 0.009). Total complications were higher (OR: 1.71; 95% CI 1.45–2.03; p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was longer (MD: 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.47–1.56 days; p < 0.001) in the drain group. The use of prophylactic drainage showed no beneficial effects after major liver resection; however, the definitions and classifications used to report on postoperative complications and surgical complexity are heterogeneous among the published studies. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are required to conclusively determine the effects of drainage after major liver resection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7862226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78622262021-02-05 Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections Dezfouli, Sepehr Abbasi Ünal, Umut Kaan Ghamarnejad, Omid Khajeh, Elias Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh, Sadeq Ramouz, Ali Salehpour, Roozbeh Golriz, Mohammad Chang, De-Hua Mieth, Markus Hoffmann, Katrin Probst, Pascal Mehrabi, Arianeb Sci Rep Article Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional drainage, wound infection, total complications, and length of hospital stay were the outcomes of interest. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (MDs) were computed by the inverse variance method. Summary effect measures are presented together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which was mostly moderate for evaluated outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and five non-randomized trials including 5,050 patients were included. Bile leakage rate was higher in the drain group (OR: 2.32; 95% CI 1.18–4.55; p = 0.01) and interventional drains were inserted more frequently in this group (OR: 1.53; 95% CI 1.11–2.10; p = 0.009). Total complications were higher (OR: 1.71; 95% CI 1.45–2.03; p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was longer (MD: 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.47–1.56 days; p < 0.001) in the drain group. The use of prophylactic drainage showed no beneficial effects after major liver resection; however, the definitions and classifications used to report on postoperative complications and surgical complexity are heterogeneous among the published studies. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are required to conclusively determine the effects of drainage after major liver resection. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7862226/ /pubmed/33542274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82333-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Dezfouli, Sepehr Abbasi
Ünal, Umut Kaan
Ghamarnejad, Omid
Khajeh, Elias
Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh, Sadeq
Ramouz, Ali
Salehpour, Roozbeh
Golriz, Mohammad
Chang, De-Hua
Mieth, Markus
Hoffmann, Katrin
Probst, Pascal
Mehrabi, Arianeb
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
title Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
title_full Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
title_fullStr Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
title_short Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage in major liver resections
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7862226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33542274
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82333-x
work_keys_str_mv AT dezfoulisepehrabbasi systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT unalumutkaan systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT ghamarnejadomid systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT khajehelias systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT alihasanalsaeghsadeq systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT ramouzali systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT salehpourroozbeh systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT golrizmohammad systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT changdehua systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT miethmarkus systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT hoffmannkatrin systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT probstpascal systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections
AT mehrabiarianeb systematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheefficacyofprophylacticabdominaldrainageinmajorliverresections