Results of a randomized controlled trial comparing closed-suction drains versus passive gravity drains after pancreatic resection
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, randomizované kontrolované studie, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
30082139
DOI
10.1016/j.surg.2018.05.030
PII: S0039-6060(18)30279-4
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- délka pobytu statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- drenáž metody MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory slinivky břišní chirurgie MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- odsávání metody MeSH
- pankreas chirurgie MeSH
- pankreatektomie škodlivé účinky MeSH
- pankreatická píštěl epidemiologie etiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- pooperační komplikace epidemiologie etiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- reoperace statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- znovupřijetí pacienta statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: This dual-center, randomized controlled trial aimed to compare 2 types of intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic resection and their effect on the development of pancreatic fistulae and postoperative complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatic resection were randomized to receive either a closed-suction drain or a closed, passive gravity drain. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula. A secondary endpoint was postoperative morbidity during follow-up of 3 months. The planned sample size was 223 patients. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were assessed for eligibility, 223 of whom were randomly allocated. One patient was lost during follow-up, and 111 patients in each group were analyzed. The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (closed-suction 43.2%, passive 36.9%, P = .47) and overall morbidity (closed-suction 51.4%, passive 40.5%, P = .43) were not different between the groups. We did not find any differences between the groups in reoperation rate (P = .45), readmission rate (P = .27), hospital stay (P = .68), or postoperative hemorrhage (P = .11). We found a significantly lesser amount of drain fluid in the passive gravity drains between the second and fifth postoperative days and also on the day of drain removal compared with closed-suction drains. CONCLUSION: The type of drain (passive versus closed suction) had no influence on the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistulae. The closed-suction drains did not increase the rate of postoperative complications. We found that the passive gravity drains are more at risk for obstruction, whereas the closed-suction drains kept their patency for greater duration.
1st Department of Surgery Medical Faculty and University Hospital Olomouc Czech Republic
Department of Surgery Medical Faculty and University Hospital Hradec Králové Czech Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org