Routine drainage of the operative bed following elective distal pancreatectomy does not reduce the occurrence of complications

Stephen W Behrman, Ben L Zarzaur, Abhishek Parmar, Taylor S Riall, Bruce L Hall, Henry A Pitt, Stephen W Behrman, Ben L Zarzaur, Abhishek Parmar, Taylor S Riall, Bruce L Hall, Henry A Pitt

Abstract

Background: Routine drainage of the operative bed following elective pancreatectomy remains controversial. Data specific to distal pancreatectomy (DP) have not been examined in a multi-institutional collaborative.

Methods: Data from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project were utilized. The impact of drain placement on development of pancreatectomy-related and overall morbidity were analyzed. Propensity scores for drain placement were calculated, and nearest neighbor matching was used to create a matched cohort. Groups were compared using bivariate and logistic regression analyses.

Results: Over 14 months, 761 patients undergoing DP were accrued; 606 were drained. Propensity score matching was possible in 116 patients. Drain and no drain groups were not different with respect to multiple preoperative and operative variables. All pancreatic fistulas (p < 0.01) and overall morbidity (p < 0.05) were more common in patients who received a drain. The placement of a drain did not reduce the incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula nor the need for postoperative procedures.

Conclusions: Placement of drains following elective distal pancreatectomy was associated with a higher overall morbidity and pancreatic fistulas. Drains did not reduce intra-abdominal septic morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas, nor the need for postoperative therapeutic intervention.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall and Serious Morbidity in Drain and No Drain Patients
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pancreatic Fistulas in Drain and No Drain Patients

References

    1. Heider R, Meyer AA, Galanko JA, et al. Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts is associated with a higher failure rate than surgical treatment in unselected patients. Ann Surg. 1999;229:781–7.
    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;234:487–94.
    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 of 104 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2006;244:1–7.
    1. Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, et al. Early verus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207–14.
    1. Correa-Gallego C, Brennan MF, D’Angelica M, et al. Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1051–8.
    1. Grobmyer SR, Graham D, Brennan MF, et al. High-pressure gradients generated by closed-suction surgical drainage systems. Surg Infections. 2002;3:245–9.
    1. Jeekel J. No abdominal drainage after Whipple’s procedure. Br J Surg. 1992;79:182–7.
    1. Heslin MJ, Harrison LE, Brooks AD, et al. Is intra-abdominal drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy? J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2:373–8.
    1. Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Silberfein EJ, et al. Pancreatic resection without routine intraperitoneal drainage. HPB. 2011;13:503–10.
    1. Paulus EM, Zarzaur BL, Behrman SW. Routine drainage of the surgical bed after elective distal pancreatectomy: is it necessary? Am J Surg. 2012;204:422–7.
    1. Adham M, Chopin-Laly X, Lepilliez V, et al. Pancreatic resection: drain or no drain. Surgery. 2013;154:1069–77.
    1. Van der Wilt AA, Coolsen MM, de Hingh IH, et al. To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection. HPB. 2013;15:337–44.
    1. Kaminsky PM, Mezhir JJ. Intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection: a review of the evidence. J Surg Res. 2013;184:925–30.
    1. Mehta VV, Fisher SB, Maithel SK, et al. Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:635–42.
    1. Van Buren G, Bloomston M, Hughes S, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenctomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;4:605–12.

    1. Available at: http://site.acsnsqip.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/ACSNSQIP.PUF_.UserGuide.2012.pdf

    1. Ball CG, Pitt HA, Kilbane ME, Dixon E, Sutherland FR, Lillemoe KD. Perioperative blood transfusions and operative time are quality indicators for pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB. 2010;12:465–71.
    1. Parikh P, Shiloach M, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Hall BL, Pitt HA. Pancreatectomy risk calculator: an ACS-NSQIP resource. HPB. 2010;12:488–97.
    1. Pitt HA, Kilbane M, Strasberg SM, Pawlick TM, Dixon E, Zyromski NJ, Aloia TA, Henderson JM, Mulvihill SJ. ACS NSQIP has potential to create an HPB-NSQIP option. HPB. 2009;11:405–13.
    1. Parmar AD, Sheffiled KM, Vargas GM, et al. Factors associated with delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduedenectomy. HPB. 2013;15:763–72.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner