Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Abdominal Digestive System Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

IF 3.5 4区医学 Q2 SURGERY

Journal of Investigative Surgery Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115

Minghui Zheng, Ting Niu, Junfeng Peng, Ligang Shi, Chenghao Shao

{"title":"Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Abdominal Digestive System Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.","authors":"Minghui Zheng, Ting Niu, Junfeng Peng, Ligang Shi, Chenghao Shao","doi":"10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.Methods: Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.Results: Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; P = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; P = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; P = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; P = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; P = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; P = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; P = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; P = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; P = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; P = 0.99).Conclusions: Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.","PeriodicalId":16200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","volume":"36 1","pages":"2180115"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.

Methods: Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.

Results: Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; P = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; P = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; P = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; P = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; P = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; P = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; P = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; P = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; P = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; P = 0.99).

Conclusions: Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.

查看原文本刊更多论文

腹部消化系统手术后主动腹腔引流：荟萃分析和系统评价。

背景：我们的目的是比较手术后被动（重力）引流（PG）和主动引流（AD）的早期结果。方法：截至2022年4月28日发表的研究从PubMed、Cochrane对照试验中央注册中心（Central）、EMBASE、Web of Science数据库中检索。结果：确定了9项研究，涉及14169名患者。两组腹腔感染率相同（RR:0.55；P = 0.13）；在胰十二指肠切除术的亚组分析中，主动引流对术后胰瘘（POPF）发生率没有显著影响（RR:1.21；P = 0.26）和临床相关POPF（CR-POPF）（RR:1.05；P = 0.72）；主动引流与较低的经皮引流率无关（RR:1.00；P = 0.96）、败血症的发生率（RR:1.00；P = 0.99）和总发病率（RR:1.02；P = 两组POPF发生率相同（RR:1.20；P = 0.18）和CR-POPF率（RR:1.20；P = 0.18）。两组在胰十二指肠切除术后引流管取出当天无差异（平均差异：-0.16；P = 0.81）和肝脏手术（平均差异：0.03；P = 0.99）。结论：主动引流并不优于被动引流，两种引流方法均可考虑。

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

Journal of Investigative Surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

114

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Investigative Surgery publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles for the advancement of surgery, to the ultimate benefit of patient care and rehabilitation. It is the only journal that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists in human and veterinary medicine, dentistry, basic and applied sciences, engineering, and law and ethics. The journal is dedicated to the publication of outstanding articles of interest to the surgical research community.