Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses


Petrowsky, H; Demartines, N; Rousson, V; Clavien, P A (2004). Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Annals of Surgery, 240(6):1074-1084; discussion 1084.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. METHODS: An electronic search of the Medline database from 1966 to 2004 was performed to identify articles comparing prophylactic drainage with no drainage in GI surgery. The studies were reviewed and classified according to their quality of evidence using the grading system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found for hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery, none for upper GI tract, and 13 for lower GI tract surgery. If sufficient RCTs were identified, we performed a meta-analysis to characterize the drain effect using the random-effects model. RESULTS: There is evidence of level 1a that drains do not reduce complications after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis. Drains were even harmful after hepatic resection in chronic liver disease and appendectomy. In the absence of RCTs, there is a consensus (evidence level 5) about the necessity of prophylactic drainage after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy due to the potential fatal outcome in case of anastomotic and gastric leakage. CONCLUSION: Many GI operations can be performed safely without prophylactic drainage. Drains should be omitted after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis (recommendation grade A), whereas prophylactic drainage remains indicated after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy (recommendation grade D). For many other GI procedures, especially involving the upper GI tract, there is a further demand for well-designed RCTs to clarify the value of prophylactic drainage.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. METHODS: An electronic search of the Medline database from 1966 to 2004 was performed to identify articles comparing prophylactic drainage with no drainage in GI surgery. The studies were reviewed and classified according to their quality of evidence using the grading system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found for hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery, none for upper GI tract, and 13 for lower GI tract surgery. If sufficient RCTs were identified, we performed a meta-analysis to characterize the drain effect using the random-effects model. RESULTS: There is evidence of level 1a that drains do not reduce complications after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis. Drains were even harmful after hepatic resection in chronic liver disease and appendectomy. In the absence of RCTs, there is a consensus (evidence level 5) about the necessity of prophylactic drainage after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy due to the potential fatal outcome in case of anastomotic and gastric leakage. CONCLUSION: Many GI operations can be performed safely without prophylactic drainage. Drains should be omitted after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis (recommendation grade A), whereas prophylactic drainage remains indicated after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy (recommendation grade D). For many other GI procedures, especially involving the upper GI tract, there is a further demand for well-designed RCTs to clarify the value of prophylactic drainage.

Statistics

Citations

176 citations in Web of Science®
222 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 27 Jun 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Date:2004
Deposited On:27 Jun 2009 12:20
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:16
Publisher:Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins
ISSN:0003-4932
Additional Information:Copyright © 2004 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000146149.17411.c5
PubMed ID:15570212

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher