Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Anastomotic leakage
Colorectal anastomosis
Colorectal surgery
Meta-analysis
Prophylactic drainage
Journal
American journal of surgery
ISSN: 1879-1883
Titre abrégé: Am J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370473
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
03
02
2019
revised:
21
03
2019
accepted:
16
05
2019
pubmed:
30
5
2019
medline:
24
4
2020
entrez:
30
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinically evident Anastomotic Leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether Prophylactic Drainage (PD) after colorectal anastomoses confers any advantage in the prevention and management of AL. Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients with Drained (D) or Undrained (UD) colorectal anastomoses performed for any cause. Four randomized controlled trials comparing D and UD patients undergoing colorectal resections with primary anastomosis were included for quantitative synthesis. In total, 1120 patients were allocated to group D (n = 566) or group UD (n = 554). The clinical AL rate was 8.5% in the D group and 7.6% in the UD group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.57). Rates of radiological AL (D: 4.2% versus UD: 5.6%; P = 0.42), mortality (D: 3.6% versus UD: 4.4%; P = 0.63), overall morbidity (D: 16.6% versus UD: 18.6%, P = 0.38), wound infection (D: 5.4% versus UD: 5.3%, P = 0.95), pelvic sepsis (D: 9.7% versus UD: 10.5%, P = 0.75), postoperative bowel obstruction (D: 9.9% versus UD: 6.9%, P = 0.07), and reintervention for abdominal complication (D: 9.1% versus UD: 7.9%, P = 0.48) were equivalent between the two groups. The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the value of PD following colorectal anastomoses does not support the routine use of prophylactic drains.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Clinically evident Anastomotic Leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether Prophylactic Drainage (PD) after colorectal anastomoses confers any advantage in the prevention and management of AL.
METHODS
Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients with Drained (D) or Undrained (UD) colorectal anastomoses performed for any cause.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials comparing D and UD patients undergoing colorectal resections with primary anastomosis were included for quantitative synthesis. In total, 1120 patients were allocated to group D (n = 566) or group UD (n = 554). The clinical AL rate was 8.5% in the D group and 7.6% in the UD group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.57). Rates of radiological AL (D: 4.2% versus UD: 5.6%; P = 0.42), mortality (D: 3.6% versus UD: 4.4%; P = 0.63), overall morbidity (D: 16.6% versus UD: 18.6%, P = 0.38), wound infection (D: 5.4% versus UD: 5.3%, P = 0.95), pelvic sepsis (D: 9.7% versus UD: 10.5%, P = 0.75), postoperative bowel obstruction (D: 9.9% versus UD: 6.9%, P = 0.07), and reintervention for abdominal complication (D: 9.1% versus UD: 7.9%, P = 0.48) were equivalent between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the value of PD following colorectal anastomoses does not support the routine use of prophylactic drains.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31138400
pii: S0002-9610(19)30150-3
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.05.006
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
164-174Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.