BACKGROUND: Perforated appendicitis is associated with postoperative development of intraperitoneal abscess. Intraperitoneal drain placement during appendectomy is thought to reduce the risk of developing postoperative intraperitoneal abscess. The aim of this study was to determine whether intraperitoneal drainage could reduce the incidence of intraperitoneal abscess formation after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients (aged 7 and above) who were diagnosed with perforated appendicitis and subsequently underwent laparoscopic appendectomy between January 2018 and December 2022 at two government hospitals in the state of Kuwait. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative characteristics were compared between patients who underwent intraoperative intraperitoneal drain placement and those who did not. The primary outcome was the development of postoperative intraperitoneal abscess. Secondary outcomes included overall postoperative complications, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), length of stay (LOS), readmission and postoperative percutaneous drainage.
RESULTS: A total of 511 patients met the inclusion criteria between 2018 and 2022. Of these, 307 (60.1%) underwent intraoperative intraperitoneal drain placement. Patients with and without drains were similar regarding age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (Table 1). The overall rate of postoperative intraperitoneal abscess was 6.1%. Postoperatively, there was no difference in postoperative intraperitoneal abscess formation between patients who underwent intraperitoneal drain placement and those who did not (6.5% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.707). Patients with intraperitoneal drains had a longer LOS (4 [4, 6] vs. 3 [2, 5] days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall complication (18.6% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.065), superficial SSI (2.9% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.791) or readmission rate (4.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.835).
CONCLUSIONS: Following laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, intraperitoneal drain placement appears to confer no additional benefit and may prolong hospital stay.

UNASSIGNED: There is no consensus regarding the routine placement of intra-abdominal drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We aim to determine the effects of intraperitoneal drain placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy on 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality.
UNASSIGNED: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors were identified from the 2014-2015 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Univariate and multivariate analyses adjusting for known prognostic variables were performed. A subgroup analysis was performed based on the risk for development of postoperative pancreatic leak determined by the pancreatic duct caliber, parenchymal texture, and body mass index.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 6858 patients with pancreatic tumors who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified in the 2014-2015 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database dataset. In all, 87.4% of patients had intraperitoneal drains placed. A 30-day mortality rate was higher in the no-drain group (2.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.003). Patients in the drain group had a higher incidence of overall morbidity (49.5% vs. 41.2%, P = 0.0008), delayed gastric emptying (18.1% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.004), pancreatic fistulae (19.4% vs. 9.9%, P ⩽ 0.0001), and prolonged length of hospital stay over 10 days (43.7% vs. 34.9%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on risk categories revealed a higher 30-day mortality rate in the no-drain group among patients with high-risk features (3.1% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.02). Delayed gastric emptying and pancreatic fistula development remained significantly higher in the drain group only in the high-risk category. Prolonged length of hospital stay and composite morbidity remained higher in the drain group regardless of the risk category.
UNASSIGNED: To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date that aims at clarifying the pros and cons of the intraperitoneal drain placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors. We showed a higher 30-day mortality rate if drain insertion was omitted during pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with softer pancreatic textures, smaller pancreatic duct caliber, and body mass index over 25. Postoperative 30-day morbidity rate was higher if a drain was inserted regardless of the risk category. Further randomized controlled trials with prospective evaluation of stratification factors for fistula risk are needed to establish a clear recommendation.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of intraperitoneal drains in pancreas resection, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed.
METHODS: For this, the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were conducted and Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were screened for relevant studies.
RESULTS: 8 retrospective and 3 prospective studies were included in the systematic review. No difference was found between patients with or without intraperitoneal drains in mortality (Risk-ratio/RR 0.74, 95%-Confidence-interval/CI: 0.47-1.18, p = 0.20), in Grade B/C-postoperative pancreatic fistulas/POPF (RR 1.31, 95%-CI: 0.74-2.32, p = 0.35), in intraabdominal abscesses (RR 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.30, p = 0.64), in surgical site infection (RR 1.20, 95%-CI: 0.85-1.70, p = 0.30), in delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.11, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.90, p = 0.71), in postoperative haemorrhages (RR 0.92 95%-CI: 0.63-1.33, p = 0.65), in reoperations (RR 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.87-1.52, p = 0.33), or in radiological reinterventions (RR 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.69-1.31, p = 0.76). The risk for overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.29, p = 0.008), of any POPF (RR 2.15, 95%-CI: 1.52-3.04, p < 0.0001) and of readmissions (RR 1.23, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.45, p = 0.01) was increased for patients with intraperitoneal drain compared to patients without following pancreatic resection.
CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the controversial results of the recent prospective, randomized trials this meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality but an increased risk for postoperative morbidity, POPF and readmissions of patients with intraperitoneal drains after pancreatic resection. Therefore, the indication for intraperitoneal drains should be critically weighed in patients undergoing pancreatic resections.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing body of literature supporting the limited use of prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage for many procedures, drain placement after pancreatic resection remains commonplace and highly controversial.
METHODS: Literature available in the PubMed was systematically reviewed by searching using combinations of keywords and citations in review articles regarding prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection, early removal of intraoperatively placed drains after pancreatic resections, and risk factors and predictive tools for pancreatic fistula.
RESULTS: Prospective randomized studies on prophylactic drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy have not shown any benefit in decreasing pancreatic fistula, total complications, length of hospital stay, or readmission rates. Frequency of complications was significantly higher in patients receiving routine drainage. This was recently supported by retrospective studies; however, patients with risk factors for pancreatic fistula (soft pancreatic texture, prolonged operative times, and increased blood loss) were more likely to have prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage. Alternatively, if a drain is placed, prospective randomized studies demonstrate that early removal is safe in patients with postoperative day 1 drain amylase values <5000 U/L and associated with a lower rate of fistula.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature supports a strategy of selective drainage and early drain removal after pancreatic resection in low-risk patients.