Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.


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
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

164-174

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Mauro Podda (M)

Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, University of Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: mauropodda@ymail.com.

Salomone Di Saverio (S)

Cambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

R Justin Davies (RJ)

Cambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Jenny Atzeni (J)

Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, University of Cagliari, Italy.

Francesco Balestra (F)

Department of General, Emergency and Robotic Surgery, San Francesco Hospital, Nuoro, Italy.

Francesco Virdis (F)

Department of General Surgery, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Isabella Reccia (I)

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Kumar Jayant (K)

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Ferdinando Agresta (F)

Department of General Surgery, Adria Civil Hospital, Adria, Italy.

Adolfo Pisanu (A)

Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, University of Cagliari, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH