Meta-analysis of routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage following distal pancreatectomy: Does the best available evidence overcome "HPB surgeon's paranoia"?

IF 2.8 2区医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY

Pancreatology Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.pan.2024.11.012

Shahin Hajibandeh, Omar Es Mostafa, Yeswanth Akula, Nader Ghassemi, Shahab Hajibandeh, Anand Bhatt, Damien Durkin, Tejinderjit S Athwal, Richard W Laing

{"title":"Meta-analysis of routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage following distal pancreatectomy: Does the best available evidence overcome \"HPB surgeon's paranoia\"?","authors":"Shahin Hajibandeh, Omar Es Mostafa, Yeswanth Akula, Nader Ghassemi, Shahab Hajibandeh, Anand Bhatt, Damien Durkin, Tejinderjit S Athwal, Richard W Laing","doi":"10.1016/j.pan.2024.11.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: To evaluate comparative outcomes of routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (DP).Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted (last search: 20th April 2024). All comparative studies reporting outcomes of DP with routine abdominal drainage and no drainage were included and their risk of bias were assessed. Overall perioperative complications, clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postoperative haemorrhage, surgical site infections (SSIs), need for radiological intervention, reoperation, re-admission, and postoperative mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters.Results: Eight comparative studies (2 randomised and 6 observational) reporting 8164 patients who underwent DP with (n = 6394) or without (n = 1770) routine abdominal drainage were included. Routine abdominal drainage was associated with significantly higher rates of CR-POPF (OR 2.87; 95 % CI 2.34-3.52, p < 0.00001), radiological intervention (OR 1.33; 95 % CI 1.10-1.61, p = 0.0003), SSIs (OR 2.47; 95 % CI 1.29-4.72, p = 0.006) or re-admission (OR 1.54; 95 % CI 1.30-1.82, P < 0.00001) compared to no use of drain. However, there was no significant difference in C-D III or higher postoperative morbidities (OR 1.25; 95 % CI 0.98-1.60, p = 0.08), DGE (OR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.81-1.67, p = 0.41), reoperation (OR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.80-1.54, P = 0.53), postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.59; 95 % CI 0.18-2.00, P = 0.40), or mortality (RD 0.0; 95 % CI -0.01-0.01, p = 0.76) between two groups.Conclusions: The meta-analysis of best available evidence indicates safety of \"no drain policy\" in distal pancreatectomy considering its lower risk of CR-POPF, re-intervention and hospital re-admission. More randomised evidence is required to overcome the \"HPB surgeon's paranoia\".","PeriodicalId":19976,"journal":{"name":"Pancreatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancreatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2024.11.012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate comparative outcomes of routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted (last search: 20th April 2024). All comparative studies reporting outcomes of DP with routine abdominal drainage and no drainage were included and their risk of bias were assessed. Overall perioperative complications, clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postoperative haemorrhage, surgical site infections (SSIs), need for radiological intervention, reoperation, re-admission, and postoperative mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters.

Results: Eight comparative studies (2 randomised and 6 observational) reporting 8164 patients who underwent DP with (n = 6394) or without (n = 1770) routine abdominal drainage were included. Routine abdominal drainage was associated with significantly higher rates of CR-POPF (OR 2.87; 95 % CI 2.34-3.52, p < 0.00001), radiological intervention (OR 1.33; 95 % CI 1.10-1.61, p = 0.0003), SSIs (OR 2.47; 95 % CI 1.29-4.72, p = 0.006) or re-admission (OR 1.54; 95 % CI 1.30-1.82, P < 0.00001) compared to no use of drain. However, there was no significant difference in C-D III or higher postoperative morbidities (OR 1.25; 95 % CI 0.98-1.60, p = 0.08), DGE (OR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.81-1.67, p = 0.41), reoperation (OR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.80-1.54, P = 0.53), postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.59; 95 % CI 0.18-2.00, P = 0.40), or mortality (RD 0.0; 95 % CI -0.01-0.01, p = 0.76) between two groups.

Conclusions: The meta-analysis of best available evidence indicates safety of "no drain policy" in distal pancreatectomy considering its lower risk of CR-POPF, re-intervention and hospital re-admission. More randomised evidence is required to overcome the "HPB surgeon's paranoia".

查看原文本刊更多论文

胰腺远端切除术后常规腹腔引流与无引流的 Meta 分析：现有的最佳证据是否能克服 "HPB 外科医生的妄想症"？

目的：评估胰腺远端切除术（DP）后常规腹腔引流与无引流的比较结果：对 MEDLINE、CENTRAL 和 Web of Science 以及参考文献目录进行了系统检索（最后一次检索日期：2024 年 4 月 20 日）。纳入了所有报告常规腹腔引流术和无引流术的对比研究，并对其偏倚风险进行了评估。评估的结果参数包括围手术期总体并发症、临床相关的术后胰瘘（CR-POPF）、胃排空延迟（DGE）、术后出血、手术部位感染（SSI）、放射介入治疗需求、再次手术、再次入院和术后死亡率：结果：共纳入了 8 项比较研究（2 项随机研究和 6 项观察性研究），报告了 8164 名接受腹腔镜手术的患者（6394 人）常规腹腔引流或不常规腹腔引流（1770 人）。常规腹腔引流与较高的 CR-POPF 发生率明显相关（OR 2.87; 95 % CI 2.34-3.52, p 结论：常规腹腔引流与 CR-POPF 发生率明显相关（OR 2.87; 95 % CI 2.34-3.52, p 结论）：对现有最佳证据的荟萃分析表明，考虑到 "无引流政策 "发生 CR-POPF、再次介入和再次入院的风险较低，因此在远端胰腺切除术中采用 "无引流政策 "是安全的。需要更多的随机证据来克服 "HPB外科医生的偏执"。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Pancreatology 医学-胃肠肝病学

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

5.60%

发文量

194

审稿时长

44 days

期刊介绍： Pancreatology is the official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP), the European Pancreatic Club (EPC) and several national societies and study groups around the world. Dedicated to the understanding and treatment of exocrine as well as endocrine pancreatic disease, this multidisciplinary periodical publishes original basic, translational and clinical pancreatic research from a range of fields including gastroenterology, oncology, surgery, pharmacology, cellular and molecular biology as well as endocrinology, immunology and epidemiology. Readers can expect to gain new insights into pancreatic physiology and into the pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapeutic approaches and prognosis of pancreatic diseases. The journal features original articles, case reports, consensus guidelines and topical, cutting edge reviews, thus representing a source of valuable, novel information for clinical and basic researchers alike.