基于证据的胰腺手术腹腔内引流方法:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Rohith Kodali, Kunal Parasar, Utpal Anand, Basant Narayan Singh, Kislay Kant, Abhishek Arora, Venkatesh Karthikeyan, Saad Anwar, Bijit Saha, Siddhali Wadaskar
{"title":"基于证据的胰腺手术腹腔内引流方法:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Rohith Kodali, Kunal Parasar, Utpal Anand, Basant Narayan Singh, Kislay Kant, Abhishek Arora, Venkatesh Karthikeyan, Saad Anwar, Bijit Saha, Siddhali Wadaskar","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.99080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Historically intraoperative drains were employed after pancreatic surgery but over the last decade, there has been debate over the routine usage of drains.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the necessity of intra-abdominal drain placement, identify the most effective drain type, and determine the optimal timing for drain removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords until December 2023. From an initial pool of 1910 articles, 48 were included after exclusion and screening. The primary outcomes analyzed were clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), overall morbidity, and mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routine use of drains is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of CR-POPF and DGE. Conversely, patients who did not have drains placed experienced a significant reduction in morbidity, readmission rates, and reoperations. No significant differences were observed between active and passive drain types. Early drain removal (< 3 days) yielded favorable outcomes compared to delayed removal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies did not demonstrate an advantage of routine drain placement following pancreatic resection, potentially contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to use drains should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. However, early drain removal can substantially reduce morbidity.</p>","PeriodicalId":94271,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"15 3","pages":"99080"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11948195/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based approach for intraabdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rohith Kodali, Kunal Parasar, Utpal Anand, Basant Narayan Singh, Kislay Kant, Abhishek Arora, Venkatesh Karthikeyan, Saad Anwar, Bijit Saha, Siddhali Wadaskar\",\"doi\":\"10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.99080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Historically intraoperative drains were employed after pancreatic surgery but over the last decade, there has been debate over the routine usage of drains.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the necessity of intra-abdominal drain placement, identify the most effective drain type, and determine the optimal timing for drain removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords until December 2023. From an initial pool of 1910 articles, 48 were included after exclusion and screening. The primary outcomes analyzed were clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), overall morbidity, and mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routine use of drains is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of CR-POPF and DGE. Conversely, patients who did not have drains placed experienced a significant reduction in morbidity, readmission rates, and reoperations. No significant differences were observed between active and passive drain types. Early drain removal (< 3 days) yielded favorable outcomes compared to delayed removal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies did not demonstrate an advantage of routine drain placement following pancreatic resection, potentially contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to use drains should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. However, early drain removal can substantially reduce morbidity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"99080\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11948195/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.99080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.99080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:历史上胰手术后术中使用引流管,但在过去的十年中,对引流管的常规使用一直存在争议。目的:评估腹腔内引流的必要性,确定最有效的引流方式,并确定最佳的引流时机。方法:到2023年12月,使用医学主题词和关键词对PubMed、MEDLINE、PubMed Central和谷歌Scholar等电子数据库进行系统综述。从最初的1910篇文章中,48篇在排除和筛选后被纳入。分析的主要结局是临床相关的术后胰瘘(CR-POPF)、胃排空延迟(DGE)、总发病率和死亡率。对胰十二指肠切除术和远端胰切除术进行亚组分析。结果:常规使用引流管与CR-POPF和DGE风险的统计学显著增加相关。相反,未放置引流管的患者发病率、再入院率和再手术率显著降低。主动和被动引流类型之间无显著差异。与延迟引流相比,早期引流(< 3天)的效果更好。结论:随机对照试验和队列研究的分析并没有显示胰腺切除术后常规引流管放置的优势,可能会增加发病率和死亡率。使用引流管的决定应由外科医生自行决定。然而,早期引流管切除可以大大降低发病率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence-based approach for intraabdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Historically intraoperative drains were employed after pancreatic surgery but over the last decade, there has been debate over the routine usage of drains.

Aim: To assess the necessity of intra-abdominal drain placement, identify the most effective drain type, and determine the optimal timing for drain removal.

Methods: A systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords until December 2023. From an initial pool of 1910 articles, 48 were included after exclusion and screening. The primary outcomes analyzed were clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), overall morbidity, and mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

Results: Routine use of drains is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of CR-POPF and DGE. Conversely, patients who did not have drains placed experienced a significant reduction in morbidity, readmission rates, and reoperations. No significant differences were observed between active and passive drain types. Early drain removal (< 3 days) yielded favorable outcomes compared to delayed removal.

Conclusion: Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies did not demonstrate an advantage of routine drain placement following pancreatic resection, potentially contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to use drains should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. However, early drain removal can substantially reduce morbidity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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