Cargando…

Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the necessity of routine prophylactic drain tube use following robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHOD: We performed a literature review using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction of language from January 1900 to January 2020. The fol...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nzenza, Tatenda C., Ngweso, Simeon, Eapen, Renu, Rajarubendra, Nieroshan, Bolton, Damien, Murphy, Declan, Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8988760/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35474940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.20
_version_ 1784683034370375680
author Nzenza, Tatenda C.
Ngweso, Simeon
Eapen, Renu
Rajarubendra, Nieroshan
Bolton, Damien
Murphy, Declan
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
author_facet Nzenza, Tatenda C.
Ngweso, Simeon
Eapen, Renu
Rajarubendra, Nieroshan
Bolton, Damien
Murphy, Declan
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
author_sort Nzenza, Tatenda C.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the necessity of routine prophylactic drain tube use following robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHOD: We performed a literature review using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction of language from January 1900 to January 2020. The following terms we used in the literature search: prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, robot assisted, drainage, and drain tube. RESULTS: We identified six studies that examined the use of routine prophylactic drain tubes following RARP. One of these studies was a randomized study that included 189 patients, with 97 in the pelvic drain (PD) arm and 92 in the no pelvic drain (ND) arm. This non‐inferiority showed an early (90‐day) complication rate of 17.4% in the ND arm versus 26.8% in the PD arm (P < .001). Another non‐inferiority randomized control trial (RCT) showed a complication rate of 28.9% in the PD group versus 20.4% in the ND group (P = .254). Similarly, the other studies found no benefit of routine use of prophylactic drain tube after RARP. CONCLUSION: Drain tubes play a role during robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy, however, following a review of the current available literature, they can be safely omitted and we suggest that clinicians may be selective in their use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8988760
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89887602022-04-25 Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice? Nzenza, Tatenda C. Ngweso, Simeon Eapen, Renu Rajarubendra, Nieroshan Bolton, Damien Murphy, Declan Lawrentschuk, Nathan BJUI Compass Review OBJECTIVE: To assess the necessity of routine prophylactic drain tube use following robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHOD: We performed a literature review using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction of language from January 1900 to January 2020. The following terms we used in the literature search: prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, robot assisted, drainage, and drain tube. RESULTS: We identified six studies that examined the use of routine prophylactic drain tubes following RARP. One of these studies was a randomized study that included 189 patients, with 97 in the pelvic drain (PD) arm and 92 in the no pelvic drain (ND) arm. This non‐inferiority showed an early (90‐day) complication rate of 17.4% in the ND arm versus 26.8% in the PD arm (P < .001). Another non‐inferiority randomized control trial (RCT) showed a complication rate of 28.9% in the PD group versus 20.4% in the ND group (P = .254). Similarly, the other studies found no benefit of routine use of prophylactic drain tube after RARP. CONCLUSION: Drain tubes play a role during robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy, however, following a review of the current available literature, they can be safely omitted and we suggest that clinicians may be selective in their use. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8988760/ /pubmed/35474940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.20 Text en © 2020 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Nzenza, Tatenda C.
Ngweso, Simeon
Eapen, Renu
Rajarubendra, Nieroshan
Bolton, Damien
Murphy, Declan
Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
title Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
title_full Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
title_fullStr Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
title_full_unstemmed Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
title_short Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
title_sort review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: dogma or decent practice?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8988760/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35474940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.20
work_keys_str_mv AT nzenzatatendac reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice
AT ngwesosimeon reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice
AT eapenrenu reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice
AT rajarubendranieroshan reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice
AT boltondamien reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice
AT murphydeclan reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice
AT lawrentschuknathan reviewoftheuseofprophylacticdraintubespostroboticradicalprostatectomydogmaordecentpractice