Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

D R Urbach, E D Kennedy, M M Cohen, D R Urbach, E D Kennedy, M M Cohen

Abstract

Objective: Many surgeons continue to place a prophylactic drain in the pelvis after completion of a colorectal anastomosis, despite considerable evidence that this practice may not be useful. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine if placement of a drain after a colonic or rectal anastomosis can reduce the rate of complications.

Methods: A search of the Medline database of English-language articles published from 1987 to 1997 was conducted using the terms "colon," "rectum," "postoperative complications," "surgical anastomosis," and "drainage." A manual search was also conducted. Four randomized controlled trials, including a total of 414 patients, were identified that compared the routine use of drainage of colonic and/or rectal anastomoses to no drainage. Two reviewers assessed the trials independently. Trial quality was critically appraised using a previously published scale, and data on mortality, clinical and radiologic anastomotic leakage rate, wound infection rate, and major complication rate were extracted.

Results: The overall quality of the studies was poor. Use of a drain did not significantly affect the rate of any of the outcomes examined, although the power of this analysis to exclude any difference was low. Comparison of pooled results revealed an odds ratio for clinical leak of 1.5 favoring the control (no drain) group. Of the 20 observed leaks among all four studies that occurred in a patient with a drain in place, in only one case (5%) did pus or enteric content actually appear in the effluent of the existing drain.

Conclusions: Any significant benefit of routine drainage of colon and rectal anastomoses in reducing the rate of anastomotic leakage or other surgical complications can be excluded with more confidence based on pooled data than by the individual trials alone. Additional well-designed randomized controlled trials would further reinforce this conclusion.

References

    1. Br J Surg. 1982 Mar;69(3):153-5
    1. N Engl J Med. 1972 Nov 23;287(21):1081-3
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1973 Jul-Aug;16(4):272-7
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1973 Nov-Dec;16(6):485-9
    1. Arch Intern Med. 1985 Apr;145(4):709-12
    1. Arch Surg. 1964 Oct;89:686-9
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1987 Jun;30(6):449-52
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989 Mar;32(3):223-6
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988 May;70(3):158-60
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993 Jan;36(1):43-8
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Mar;38(3):254-8
    1. Br J Surg. 1993 Jun;80(6):769-71
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Jul;38(7):687-94
    1. JAMA. 1993 Jun 2;269(21):2749-53
    1. Stat Med. 1987 Apr-May;6(3):315-28
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991 Mar;34(3):223-8
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Mar;45(3):255-65
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1982 Oct;25(7):680-4
    1. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985 Mar-Apr;27(5):335-71
    1. J R Soc Med. 1989 Nov;82(11):661-4
    1. N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 19;316(8):450-5
    1. CMAJ. 1988 May 15;138(10):891-5

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever