UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Abdominal drains in liver transplantation: useful tool or useless dogma? a matched case-control study


de Rougemont, O; Dutkowski, P; Weber, M; Clavien, P A (2009). Abdominal drains in liver transplantation: useful tool or useless dogma? a matched case-control study. Liver Transplantation, 15(1):96-101.

Abstract

On the basis of the growing evidence from randomized trials that routine prophylactic drainage is unnecessary in liver surgery or even harmful in chronic liver disease, we challenged the concept of prophylactic drainage in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Since September 2006, we omitted drains in every patient who underwent OLT, regardless of the procedure. Thirty-five cadaveric OLTs were performed during a 12-month period. These patients were matched 1:2 with 70 patients who had prophylactic drainage after OLT according to donor/recipient age, recipient gender, recipient body mass index, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Endpoints were postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay. Complications were graded according to a therapy-oriented classification (grades I-V). Both groups (no drainage, n = 35; drainage, n = 70) were comparable in terms of median donor age (47.5 versus 51.0 years), recipient age (50.6 versus 52.0 years), MELD score (18 versus 14), and body mass index (25.3 versus 26 kg/m(2)). Because of the increasing shortage of organs, more marginal grafts were used in the recent period (ie, no-drainage group): 49% (17/35) versus 27% (19/70; P = 0.04). Major complications were not different between groups: grade 3a (endoscopic/radiological intervention) in 20% (7/35) versus 16% (11/70; not significant), grade 3b (surgical intervention) in 23% (8/35) versus 17% (12/70; not significant), grade 4a (ICU therapy, intermittent hemodialysis) in 34% (12/35) versus 21% (15/70; not significant), grade 4b (multiorgan failure) in 14% (5/35) versus 10% (7/70; not significant), and grade 5 (death) in 6% (2/35) versus 7% (5/70; not significant). This matched case study challenges the dogma of prophylactic drainage after OLT. A no-drain strategy provided no disadvantages despite increased use of extended criteria donors in the no-drainage group. Prophylactic drainage appears unnecessary on a routine basis.

On the basis of the growing evidence from randomized trials that routine prophylactic drainage is unnecessary in liver surgery or even harmful in chronic liver disease, we challenged the concept of prophylactic drainage in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Since September 2006, we omitted drains in every patient who underwent OLT, regardless of the procedure. Thirty-five cadaveric OLTs were performed during a 12-month period. These patients were matched 1:2 with 70 patients who had prophylactic drainage after OLT according to donor/recipient age, recipient gender, recipient body mass index, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Endpoints were postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay. Complications were graded according to a therapy-oriented classification (grades I-V). Both groups (no drainage, n = 35; drainage, n = 70) were comparable in terms of median donor age (47.5 versus 51.0 years), recipient age (50.6 versus 52.0 years), MELD score (18 versus 14), and body mass index (25.3 versus 26 kg/m(2)). Because of the increasing shortage of organs, more marginal grafts were used in the recent period (ie, no-drainage group): 49% (17/35) versus 27% (19/70; P = 0.04). Major complications were not different between groups: grade 3a (endoscopic/radiological intervention) in 20% (7/35) versus 16% (11/70; not significant), grade 3b (surgical intervention) in 23% (8/35) versus 17% (12/70; not significant), grade 4a (ICU therapy, intermittent hemodialysis) in 34% (12/35) versus 21% (15/70; not significant), grade 4b (multiorgan failure) in 14% (5/35) versus 10% (7/70; not significant), and grade 5 (death) in 6% (2/35) versus 7% (5/70; not significant). This matched case study challenges the dogma of prophylactic drainage after OLT. A no-drain strategy provided no disadvantages despite increased use of extended criteria donors in the no-drainage group. Prophylactic drainage appears unnecessary on a routine basis.

Citations

18 citations in Web of Science®
22 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 11 Mar 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Visceral and Transplantation Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2009
Deposited On:11 Mar 2009 17:04
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:50
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:1527-6465
Publisher DOI:10.1002/lt.21676
PubMed ID:19109839
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-10362

Download

[img]
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations