Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 28, 2015; 21(40): 11458-11468
Published online Oct 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i40.11458
Published online Oct 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i40.11458
Table 3 Main characteristics and results of studies comparing different drain types n (%)
| Ref. | Year | Type of study | Type of resection, n | Type of drain | Morbidity | POPF |
| Aimoto et al[36] | 2008 | Time cohort | 33 PD | Duple drain (n = 14) | 10 (71) | 14 (100) |
| Blake drain (n = 19) | 2 (11) | 19 (100) | ||||
| Schmidt et al[48] | 2009 | Retrospective | 510 PD | Penrose drain (n = 241) | 241 (47) | 8 (3) |
| Closed-suction (n = 269) | 269 (53) | 38 (14) | ||||
| Yoshikawa et al[49] | 2011 | Time cohort | 97 DP | Penrose drain (n = 56) | 56 (58) | 40 (71) |
| Closed-suction (n = 41) | 41 (42) | 26 (63) | ||||
| Yui et al[50] | 2014 | Time cohort | 109 DP | Penrose drain (n = 52) | 28 (54) | 22 (42) |
| Closed-suction (n = 57) | 25 (44) | 15 (26) |
- Citation: Čečka F, Loveček M, Jon B, Skalický P, Šubrt Z, Neoral Č, Ferko A. Intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: A systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(40): 11458-11468
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i40/11458.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i40.11458