Routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage after elective hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Q3 Medicine
Medical Journal of Malaysia Pub Date : 2026-09-01
H Zhang, H Xu, D Song, L Ba
{"title":"Routine abdominal drainage versus no drainage after elective hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"H Zhang, H Xu, D Song, L Ba","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The value of routine abdominal drainage after hepatectomy remains controversial. Although drains have traditionally been used to detect bile leakage or postoperative bleeding and to evacuate intra-abdominal collections, their routine use after elective liver resection has increasingly been questioned.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials comparing routine abdominal drainage with no drainage after elective hepatectomy was performed. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 1 April 2026 using predefined terms related to hepatectomy, drainage, and randomized trials. The outcomes of interest included overall postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, wound-related complications, bile leakage or biliary fistula, subphrenic or perihepatic fluid collection, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials involving 1,025 patients were included, with 513 patients allocated to routine drainage and 512 to no drainage. Routine drainage was associated with higher overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16-1.71; I<sup>2</sup> = 32.5%) and more wound-related complications (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.56-4.86; I² = 36.1%). Postoperative mortality remained low and did not differ significantly between groups (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50-3.00; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Reported bile-leakage events were more frequent in the drainage group (RR 5.02, 95% CI 1.53-16.48; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%); however, this outcome is highly susceptible to ascertainment bias because the opportunity to detect bile leakage differs according to drain status. Subphrenic/perihepatic collection did not differ clearly between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48-2.15; I<sup>2</sup> = 71.4%). Length of hospital stay showed a small pooled difference favoring drainage (MD -0.35 days, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.20), but between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I<sup>2</sup> = 82.3%) and the trial-level directions were inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current randomized evidence does not support routine abdominal drainage after elective hepatectomy, particularly in uncomplicated or standard-risk cases. A selective rather than routine strategy appears more appropriate, and the apparent bile-leakage signal and hospital-stay result should be interpreted in light of ascertainment bias, outcome-definition differences, and substantial between-study heterogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":39388,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Malaysia","volume":"81 5","pages":"795-802"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Malaysia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The value of routine abdominal drainage after hepatectomy remains controversial. Although drains have traditionally been used to detect bile leakage or postoperative bleeding and to evacuate intra-abdominal collections, their routine use after elective liver resection has increasingly been questioned.

Materials and methods: A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials comparing routine abdominal drainage with no drainage after elective hepatectomy was performed. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 1 April 2026 using predefined terms related to hepatectomy, drainage, and randomized trials. The outcomes of interest included overall postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality, wound-related complications, bile leakage or biliary fistula, subphrenic or perihepatic fluid collection, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.

Results: Six randomized controlled trials involving 1,025 patients were included, with 513 patients allocated to routine drainage and 512 to no drainage. Routine drainage was associated with higher overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16-1.71; I2 = 32.5%) and more wound-related complications (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.56-4.86; I² = 36.1%). Postoperative mortality remained low and did not differ significantly between groups (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50-3.00; I2 = 0%). Reported bile-leakage events were more frequent in the drainage group (RR 5.02, 95% CI 1.53-16.48; I2 = 0%); however, this outcome is highly susceptible to ascertainment bias because the opportunity to detect bile leakage differs according to drain status. Subphrenic/perihepatic collection did not differ clearly between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48-2.15; I2 = 71.4%). Length of hospital stay showed a small pooled difference favoring drainage (MD -0.35 days, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.20), but between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 82.3%) and the trial-level directions were inconsistent.

Conclusion: Current randomized evidence does not support routine abdominal drainage after elective hepatectomy, particularly in uncomplicated or standard-risk cases. A selective rather than routine strategy appears more appropriate, and the apparent bile-leakage signal and hospital-stay result should be interpreted in light of ascertainment bias, outcome-definition differences, and substantial between-study heterogeneity.

择期肝切除术后常规腹腔引流与不引流:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:肝切除术后常规腹腔引流的价值仍有争议。虽然引流管传统上用于检测胆汁渗漏或术后出血,并排出腹腔内收集物,但其在择期肝切除术后的常规使用越来越受到质疑。材料和方法:对选择性肝切除术后常规腹腔引流与不引流的随机对照试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library从数据库建立到2026年4月1日,使用与肝切除术、引流术和随机试验相关的预定义术语进行检索。研究结果包括总体术后发病率、术后死亡率、伤口相关并发症、胆漏或胆瘘、膈下或肝周积液以及住院时间。使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险。结果:纳入6项随机对照试验1025例患者,其中513例为常规引流组,512例为不引流组。常规引流与较高的术后总发病率(RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16-1.71; I2 = 32.5%)和更多的伤口相关并发症(RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.56-4.86; I²= 36.1%)相关。术后死亡率仍然很低,两组间无显著差异(RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50-3.00; I2 = 0%)。引流组报告的胆漏事件更频繁(RR 5.02, 95% CI 1.53-16.48; I2 = 0%);然而,这个结果很容易受到确定偏差的影响,因为检测胆汁泄漏的机会根据引流状态而不同。膈下/肝周收集在两组间无明显差异(RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48-2.15; I2 = 71.4%)。住院时间的汇总差异较小,有利于引流(MD -0.35天,95% CI -0.50 ~ -0.20),但研究间异质性较大(I2 = 82.3%),且试验水平方向不一致。结论:目前的随机证据不支持择期肝切除术后常规腹腔引流,特别是在无并发症或标准风险病例中。选择性而非常规策略似乎更合适,明显的胆漏信号和住院结果应根据确定偏差、结果定义差异和研究间的实质性异质性来解释。
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
Medical Journal of Malaysia
Medical Journal of Malaysia Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: Published since 1890 this journal originated as the Journal of the Straits Medical Association. With the formation of the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Journal became the official organ, supervised by an editorial board. Some of the early Hon. Editors were Mr. H.M. McGladdery (1960 - 1964), Dr. A.A. Sandosham (1965 - 1977), Prof. Paul C.Y. Chen (1977 - 1987). It is a scientific journal, published quarterly and can be found in medical libraries in many parts of the world. The Journal also enjoys the status of being listed in the Index Medicus, the internationally accepted reference index of medical journals. The editorial columns often reflect the Association''s views and attitudes towards medical problems in the country. The MJM aims to be a peer reviewed scientific journal of the highest quality. We want to ensure that whatever data is published is true and any opinion expressed important to medical science. We believe being Malaysian is our unique niche; our priority will be for scientific knowledge about diseases found in Malaysia and for the practice of medicine in Malaysia. The MJM will archive knowledge about the changing pattern of human diseases and our endeavours to overcome them. It will also document how medicine develops as a profession in the nation. We will communicate and co-operate with other scientific journals in Malaysia. We seek articles that are of educational value to doctors. We will consider all unsolicited articles submitted to the journal and will commission distinguished Malaysians to write relevant review articles. We want to help doctors make better decisions and be good at judging the value of scientific data. We want to help doctors write better, to be articulate and precise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书