{"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.
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.