Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution

Camilo Correa-Gallego, Murray F Brennan, Michael Dʼangelica, Yuman Fong, Ronald P Dematteo, T Peter Kingham, William R Jarnagin, Peter J Allen, Camilo Correa-Gallego, Murray F Brennan, Michael Dʼangelica, Yuman Fong, Ronald P Dematteo, T Peter Kingham, William R Jarnagin, Peter J Allen

Abstract

Background: The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection was published from our institution approximately 10 years ago. The current study sought to evaluate the evolution of practice over the last 5 years.

Patients and methods: Between June 2006 and June 2011, there were 1122 resections performed. Six surgeons were evenly grouped and compared by practice pattern: routine drainers (drains placed > 95%), selective drainers, and routine nondrainers (drains placed ∼15%). Prospectively recorded preoperative, operative, and morbidity data were assessed in uni- and multivariate models.

Results: Our operative drainage rate was 49% and decreased over time (62% 2006-2008 vs 37% 2009-2011, P < 0.001). Patients without operative drains had significantly lower grade ≥3 overall morbidity (26% vs 33%; P = 0.01), shorter hospital stays (7 vs 8 days; P < 0.01), fewer readmissions (20% vs 27%; P = 0.01), and lower rates of grade ≥3 pancreatic fistula (16% vs 20%; P = 0.05). Similar reoperation (both <1%), interventional radiology procedures (15% vs 19%; P = 0.1), and mortality rates (2% vs 1%; P = 0.3) were seen in both groups. There were no differences between the routine drainers group (n = 248) and the nondrainers group (n = 478) in grade ≥3 fistula or need for interventional radiology-guided procedures.

Conclusions: In this study, operative drains were used nearly half of the time and were associated with longer hospital stay, and higher grade ≥3 morbidity, fistula, and readmission rates. They did not decrease the need for reintervention or alter mortality rates. Routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection could be safely abandoned.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Use of operative drains and grade ≥3 fistula rates. Lines: Prophylactic drainage trends over years per surgeon type. Bars: Incidence of grade ≥3 fistula overall. RD, routine drainers; SD, selective drainers; ND, nondrainers.

References

    1. Levy M. Intraperitoneal drainage. Am J Surg. 1984;147:309–314.
    1. Fong Y, Brennan MF, Brown K, et al. Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection. Am J Surg. 1996;171:158–162.
    1. Budd DC, Cochran RC, Fouty WJ., Jr Cholecystectomy with and without drainage. A randomized, prospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg. 1982;143:307–309.
    1. Alvarez Uslar R, Molina H, Torres O, et al. Total gastrectomy with or without abdominal drains. A prospective randomized trial. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2005;97:562–569.
    1. Kim J, Lee J, Hyung WJ, et al. Gastric cancer surgery without drains: a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:727–732.
    1. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, et al. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery. 1999;125:529–535.
    1. Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, et al. Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg. 1998;133:309–314.
    1. Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Silberfein EJ, et al. Pancreatic resection without routine intraperitoneal drainage. HPB (Oxford) 2011;13:503–510.
    1. Conlon KC, Labow D, Leung D, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg. 2001;234:487–493. discussion 493–494.
    1. Veillette G, Dominguez I, Ferrone C, et al. Implications and management of pancreatic fistulas following pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Arch Surg. 2008;143:476–481.
    1. Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, et al. Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;246:281–287.
    1. Park J, Pillarisetty VG, Brennan MF, et al. Electronic synoptic operative reporting: assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:308–315.
    1. Grobmyer SR, Pieracci FM, Allen PJ, et al. Defining morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy: use of a prospective complication grading system. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:356–364.
    1. De Oliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244:931–937. discussion 937–939.
    1. Vin Y, Sima C, Getrajdman G, et al. Management and outcomes of postpancreatectomy fistula, leak, and abscess: results of 908 patients resected at a single institution between 2000 and 2005. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:490–498.
    1. Lillemoe KD. Prevention, evaluation, and treatment of leaks after gastrointestinal surgery: prevention of leaks after pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:1325–1326.
    1. Schmidt CM, Choi J, Powell ES, et al. Pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: clinical predictors and patient outcomes. HPB Surg. 2009:404–520.
    1. Berger AC, Howard TJ, Kennedy EP, et al. Does type of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy decrease rate of pancreatic fistula? A randomized, prospective, dual-institution trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:738–747. discussion 747–749.
    1. Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, et al. Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207–214.
    1. Veillette GR, Correa-Gallego C, Ferrone CR, et al. A drain amylase less than 1000 U/L on the first post-operative day effectively predicts the absence of a high-impact fistula following pancreatic resection. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:S855.
    1. Kawai M, Tani M, Terasawa H, et al. Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection: prospective study for 104 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2006;244:1–7.
    1. Burt BM, Brown K, Jarnagin W, et al. An audit of results of a no-drainage practice policy after hepatectomy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:441–445.
    1. Belghiti J, Kabbej M, Sauvanet A, et al. Drainage after elective hepatic resection. A randomized trial. Ann Surg. 1993;218:748–753.
    1. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.
    1. Heslin MJ, Harrison LE, Brooks AD, et al. Is intra-abdominal drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy? J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2:373–378.
    1. Jeekel J. No abdominal drainage after Whipple’s procedure. Br J Surg. 1992;79:182.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren