Meta-Analysis Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28, 2015; 21(8): 2510-2521
Published online Feb 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i8.2510
Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Yi-Chao Wang, Jing-Qiang Zhu, Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
Peter Szatmary, Wei Huang, Ilias Gomatos, Quentin M Nunes, Robert Sutton, NIHR Liverpool Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, University of Liverpool, L69 3GA Liverpool, United Kingdom
Jun-Jie Xiong, Xu-Bao Liu, Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
Author contributions: Wang YC and Szatmary P contributed equally to this work; Zhu JQ, Liu XB and Sutton R designed the research, and corrected and approved the manuscript; Wang YC, Szatmary P, Xiong JJ, Huang W, Gomatos I and Nunes QM developed the literature search and carried out statistical analysis of the studies; Wang YC, Szatmary P, Xiong JJ and Huang W performed data extraction; Wang YC and Szatmary P wrote the manuscript; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Jing-Qiang Zhu, MD, Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Road, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China. jingqiangzhu@163.com
Telephone: +86-28-85422469 Fax: +86-28-85422872
Received: June 17, 2014
Peer-review started: June 17, 2014
First decision: July 9, 2014
Revised: July 26, 2014
Accepted: September 19, 2014
Article in press: September 19, 2014
Published online: February 28, 2015
Processing time: 256 Days and 0.5 Hours

Abstract

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with or without prophylactic drainage.

METHODS: Relevant comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were systemically searched based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with and those without routine drainage. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects or random effects models.

RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and four non-randomized comparative studies recruiting 1728 patients were analyzed. Patients without prophylactic drainage after PD had significantly higher mortality (OR = 2.32, 95%CI: 1.11-4.85; P = 0.02), despite the fact that they were associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.48-0.82; P = 0.00), major complications (OR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.93; P = 0.01) and readmissions (OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.60-0.98; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the rates of pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal abscesses, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation or radiologic-guided drains between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Indiscriminate abandonment of intra-abdominal drainage following PD is associated with greater mortality, but lower complication rates. Future randomized trials should compare routine vs selective drainage.

Key Words: Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Drain; Meta-analysis; Morbidity; Postoperative pancreatic fistula

Core tip: Routine prophylactic drainage remains standard practice following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) due to concerns that abandoning this would not be safe. Existing studies provide limited evidence regarding prophylactic drainage following PD. A systematic review addressing postoperative drainage following PD is therefore required. This study clarified that indiscriminate abandonment of intra-abdominal drainage following PD is associated with greater mortality, but lower overall and major complication rates. However, future randomized trials are needed to compare routine vs selective drainage.



INTRODUCTION

The routine use of intraperitoneal drain placement at the end of abdominal operations has been considered standard practice for many years. It can prevent build-up of intra-abdominal fluid collections and debris, as well monitor for anastomotic leaks and hemorrhage[1,2]. In recent years, however, a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic drainage at the operative bed is not associated with a reduction in postoperative complications in elective cholecystectomy[3], hepatectomy[4], gastrectomy[5] or colectomy[6]. As a result, surgeons are beginning to abandon this practice.

The role of prophylactic drain placement after pancreatic resection remains unclear. With a reported morbidity between 30% and 50% in pancreatic surgery, resulting in both prolonged hospital stay and increased cost[7,8], even a modest improvement in procedure can have great benefits for patients and hospitals alike. The commonest complication after pancreatic resection is postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), which has an incidence ranging from 2% to more than 30% and is thought to contribute to other complications such as hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, sepsis, multisystem organ failure and death[7]. As drains allow early identification and management of these complications, their use following elective pancreatic resection has become routine[9,10]. There is, however, an ongoing debate regarding risks and benefits of their use in this setting. For example, it is argued that drainage tubes may impede wound healing, and that the pressure generated by closed-suction systems may even contribute to the formation of POPF[11]. Furthermore, given the significant improvements in quality and availability of diagnostic and interventional radiology services in recent years, a drain can be usually be safely placed percutaneously to deal with POPF or abdominal fluid collections should they develop. Therefore, the routine practice of drain placement after pancreatic resection is open to debate[12].

Existing studies provide limited evidence regarding the use of prophylactic drainage following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) as well as the optimal timing for drain removal[13,14]. Routine prophylactic drainage remains standard practice by the majority of pancreatic surgeons around the world[14,15] and many surgeons fear that abandoning this would not be safe. A systematic review addressing postoperative drainage or not following PD is therefore required. The current study was conducted to clarify this issue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study selection

PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and observational comparative studies on routine intraperitoneal drainage after PD up to and including May 2014. Search terms included: “drainage”, “drain”, “suction”, “pancreaticoduodenectomy”, “pancreatoduodenectomy”, “Whipple”, “pancreatoduodenal resection”, “postoperative complications” and “pancreatic fistula”. Reference lists of selected articles were also examined to find relevant studies not identified during the database searches. Investigators and experts in the field of pancreatic surgery were then contacted to ensure that all relevant studies were identified. Only comparative clinical trials with full-text descriptions were included. Final inclusion of articles was determined by consensus between two authors; where this failed, a third author adjudicated.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The PRISMA criteria[16] were used as guidelines in the construction of this analysis. Two authors screened the search results for potentially eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: (1) English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals; (2) human studies; and (3) studies with at least one of the outcomes mentioned. Where multiple studies came from the same institute and/or authors, either the higher quality study or the more recent publication was included in the analysis.

Exclusion criteria were: (1) abstracts, letters, editorials, expert opinions, case reports, reviews and studies lacking control groups; (2) studies including patients undergoing distal or central pancreatectomy; (3) studies only comparing peripancreatic fixed drain and non-fixed drainage; and (4) studies only comparing early and delayed removal of drainage tube after PD.

Outcomes of interest and definitions

Primary outcome was mortality, which was defined as death from any cause, prior to discharge from hospital or within 30, 60 or 90 d. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of POPF, biliary fistula, delayed gastric emptying, intra-abdominal abscess formation, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, reoperation, readmission and need for radiologic-guided drains. POPF was defined using the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition[17] or other definitions. Overall complications were defined as the sum of the aforementioned complications from operation to discharge. Major complications were defined as grade III-IV according to the Clavien Classification of Surgical Complications[18]. Whenever relevant information was lacking, the following definitions were applied. Biliary fistula was defined as a bilirubin-containing discharge of typical color or as determined by fistulography. Delayed gastric emptying was defined as the need for nasogastric decompression beyond ten days after surgery, or as proposed by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery[19]. Intra-abdominal abscess formation was defined as an intra-abdominal fluid collection associated with fever requiring drainage and subsequently yielding positive cultures. Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage was defined as per the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition[20]. Reoperation was defined as the need for laparotomy as a consequence of the first operation. Readmission was defined as the need for hospital admission for any reason.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data were extracted by two independent researchers using standardized forms. The qualitative assessment of the RCTs was based on the Jadad et al[21] scoring system that took into consideration the randomization and double-blinding process and the description of withdrawals or dropouts. Note was also made of sample size calculation, sequence generation, allocation concealment, and definitions of outcome parameters. The non-RCTs were assessed on the basis of McKay et al[22] method that included assessment of the following parameters: prospective vs retrospective data collection; assignment to drain group or no drain group by means other than the surgeon’s preference; and an explicit definition of POPF or leak (studies were given a score of 1 for each of these areas; score 1-4).

Statistical analysis

The meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager Version 5.1 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CIs were calculated using fixed or random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated by means of the χ2 test, with P < 0.1 considered to represent a significant difference. I2 values were used for the evaluation of statistical heterogeneity; an I2 value of ≥ 50% indicated the presence of heterogeneity[23]. The fixed effects model was initially calculated for all outcomes[24], but if the test rejected the assumption of homogeneity of studies, a random effects analysis was performed[25]. If data were considered to be inappropriate for meta-analysis in the included studies, some outcomes were presented in a descriptive way. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing individual studies from the data set and analyzing the effect on the overall results to identify sources of significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by including studies with the ISGPF definition or quality score ≥ 2 to present cumulative evidence. Funnel plots[26] were constructed to evaluate potential publication bias based on POPF.

RESULTS
Description of included trials in the meta-analysis

The search strategy initially generated 288 relevant clinical trials. A total of 12 full text articles[12,27-37] were identified for detailed investigation. Of these, seven studies[12,14,28,29,31,32,34] were excluded: one study only compared peripancreatic fixed drain and non-fixed drainage[29], two studies[14,28] only compared early and delayed removal of drainage tube, three studies[12,31,34] included patients undergoing central and distal pancreatectomy, and one study[32] focused on distal pancreatectomy alone. Figure 1 shows the process of selecting comparative studies included in our meta-analysis. The study characteristics and quality assessments are shown in Table 1 and the definition of POPF in Table 2. Postoperative outcomes are listed in Table 3.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies.
Ref.YearCountryDesignDrainnSex (male/female)Age (yr)Type of surgeryDisease (M/B)Score1
Heslin et al[30]1998United StatesRetroYes5118/2065 ± 2PD47/41
No3819/3265 ± 2PPPD31/7
Lim et al[33]2013FranceRetroYes278/1962 (40-76)PD20/71
No278/1962 (38-78)PPPD20/7
Mehta et al[36]2013United StatesRetroYes251130/12160.0PD162/891
No458222/23662.5PPPD289/169
Correa-Gallego et al[35]2013United StatesPNRYes386NANANA282/1042
No353257/96
Van Buren et al[37]2014United StatesRCTYes6837/3162.1 ± 11.7PD45/233
No6938/3164.3 ± 12.650/19
Figure 1
Figure 1 Flow diagram depicting the study selection. CP: Central pancreatectomy; DP: Distal pancreatectomy; PD: Pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Table 2 Definition of pancreatic fistula.
Ref.Definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula
Heslin et al[30]> 30 mL/d pancreatic fluid drainage for more than 1 wk
Lim et al[33]International study group on pancreatic fistula definition
Mehta et al[36]International study group on pancreatic fistula definition
Correa-Gallego et al[35]Clinical signs and symptoms with amylase-rich drainage > 50 mL/d after postoperative day 10
Van Buren et al[37]International study group on pancreatic fistula definition
Table 3 Postoperative outcomes.
Ref.DrainComplications
POPFBFDGEIAAPOHMortalityReoperationReadmissionRGD
OverallMajor
Heslin et al[30]Yes23143NANA3NANA1NA2
No1581NANA0NANA3NA1
Lim et al[33]Yes195503121201
No152004121111
Mehta et al[36]Yes1716241NANANA05144421
No2487535NANANA011267529
Correa-Gallego et al[35]YesNA139104NANANANA3210768
NoNA10559NANANANA1127349
Van Buren et al[37]Yes50/50119/2117/813/3116/1617/816/610/1/222166
No52/55128/28114/1411/2126/29117/18110/1314/6/8261216

In total, five studies (1728 patients) were included: 945 and 783 patients in the no drain and drain group, respectively. The number of patients in each study ranged from 54 to 739. There was only one RCT[37] and four observational comparative studies with prospective[35]or retrospective designs[30,33,36]. The ISGPF definition of POPF was used in three studies[33,36,37]. Three studies[30,35,36] did not comment on timing of complications, but one study[33] reported 90 d complication rate and another[37] reported 30 and 60 d rates.

Primary outcomes

Results of the analyses are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 4. Four studies[33,35-37] reported mortality. Because Van Buren et al[37] reported 30, 60 and 90 d mortality rates, analyses were repeated using each time point individually. Using the 30 d mortality rate, there was higher mortality in the no drain group (OR = 2.32, 95%CI: 1.11-4.85; P = 0.02). This finding persisted using both 60 d (OR = 2.36, 95%CI: 1.15-4.84; P = 0.02) and 90 d rates (OR = 2.34, 95%CI: 1.17- 4.67; P = 0.02).

Figure 2
Figure 2 Forest plots illustrating meta-analysis of primary outcomes comparing drain with no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CIs were calculated using the fixed effects models to analyze outcomes at A: 30 d; B: 60 d; and C: 90 d.
Table 4 Summary results of drain vs no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
OutcomeStudies (n)Patients (n)OR (95%CI)PHeterogeneity
PI2
All studiesOverall complications49890.62 (0.48-0.82)< 0.010.391%
Major complications517280.75 (0.60-0.93)0.010.1147%
Postoperative pancreatic fistula517280.61 (0.33-1.12)0.110.0363%
Biliary fistula21910.32 (0.03-3.14)0.33NANA
Delayed gastric emptying21911.85 (0.94-3.62)0.070.700%
Intra-abdominal abscess formation32801.80 (0.82-3.97)0.140.1940%
Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage21911.55 (0.60-3.99)0.360.630%
Mortality416392.32 (1.11-4.85)0.020.3312%
Reoperation517281.26 (0.73-2.17)0.410.510%
Readmission416390.77 (0.60-0.98)0.040.560%
Radiologic-guided drains517280.98 (0.57-1.66)0.930.1343%
ISGPF definitionOverall complications39000.61 (0.46-0.81)< 0.010.2626%
Major complications39000.82 (0.34-1.98)0.660.0274%
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPF B/C)39000.61 (0.14-2.66)0.510.0181%
Intra-abdominal abscess formation21912.57 (1.05-6.29)0.040.490%
Mortality39001.68 (0.68-4.18)0.260.400%
Reoperation39001.16 (0.64-2.09)0.630.363%
Readmission39000.89 (0.62-1.27)0.520.610%
Radiologic-guided drains39001.34 (0.43-4.19)0.610.0566%
Quality score ≥ 2Major complications28761.08 (0.47-2.46)0.850.0378%
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPF B/C)28761.02 (0.26-4.00)0.980.0186%
Mortality28764.88 (1.52-15.69)0.010.610%
Reoperation28762.10 (0.62-7.12)0.230.420%
Readmission28760.68 (0.50-0.93)0.020.990%
Radiologic-guided drains28761.42 (0.36-5.66)0.620.0185%
Secondary outcomes

Results of the analyses are shown in Figures 3 and 4 and summarized in Table 4. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of POPF between the drain and no drain groups, analyzing both the 30 d (OR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.33-1.12) and 60 d (OR = 0.59, 95 %CI: 0.33-1.05) rates in the Van Buren et al[37] study. There was, however, significant heterogeneity (I2 = 63%) when using the 60 d time point.

Figure 3
Figure 3 Forest plots illustrating meta-analysis of secondary outcomes comparing drain with no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CIs were calculated using fixed or random effects models to analyze outcomes at 30 d. A: Pancreatic fistula; B: Overall complications; C: Major complications; D: Intra-abdominal abscess; E: Postoperative hemorrhage; F: Delayed gastric emptying; G: Reoperation; H: Readmission; I: Biliary fistula; J: Radiologic-guided drain.
Figure 4
Figure 4 Forest plots illustrating meta-analysis of secondary outcomes comparing drain with no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CIs were calculated using fixed or random effects models to analyze outcomes at 60 d. A: Pancreatic fistula; B: Overall complications; C: Major complications; D: Delayed gastric emptying; E: Intra-abdominal abscess; F: Biliary fistula; G: Postoperative hemorrhage.

As for the other complications, there were no statistically significant differences in the rates of intra-abdominal abscess formation (OR = 1.80, 95%CI: 0.82-3.97), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.60-3.99), biliary fistula (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.03-3.14), delayed gastric emptying (OR = 1.85, 95%CI: 0.94-3.62), reoperation (OR = 1.26, 95%CI: 0.73-2.17) or use of radiologic-guided drains (OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.57-1.66) between the two groups when using the 30 d rates reported by Van Buren et al[37]. However, overall complications (OR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.48-0.82; P < 0.01), major complications (OR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.93; P = 0.01) and rate of readmission (OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.60-0.98; P = 0.04) were fewer in the no drain group. Similar findings were obtained using the 60 d complication rates reported by Van Buren et al[37], with no statistically significant differences in intra-abdominal abscess formation (OR 1.75, 95%CI: 0.81-3.77), biliary fistula (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.10-4.00) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage rates (OR = 2.02, 95%CI: 0.81-5.01). Rates of delayed gastric emptying (OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.10-4.19; P = 0.02), however, were lower in the drain group. The no drain group still had fewer overall (OR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.49-0.84; P < 0.01) and major (OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.59-0.92; P = 0.01) complications.

Statistical analysis

Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from each outcome measure. These exclusions did not alter the results obtained from cumulative analyses. The subgroup analyses were undertaken for all outcome measures by including studies with ISGPF definition or quality score ≥ 2. Results of the analyses are summarized in Table 4.

Publication bias

The funnel plot based on the incidence of POPF is shown in Figure 5. None of the studies lie outside the limits of the 95%CI and hence, there was no evidence of publication bias. However, there was a somewhat asymmetric distribution around the vertical axis with an absence of smaller studies favoring PD with no drain.

Figure 5
Figure 5 Funnel plot to investigate publication bias.
DISCUSSION

Routine drainage after surgery has been a hotly debated topic since the advent of surgical drains. Over the past 30 years, however, its application has declined due to the relative ease and safety of computed tomography-guided drainage[38] and literature demonstrating increased frequency of complications with routine drainage[39]. There are divided opinions over routine drainage following pancreatic resections because of the high frequency of clinically significant complications, many of which relate to POPF. Routine drain placement potentially allows early detection of POPF and potentially gives clues that allow differentiation between POPF, intra-abdominal abscess formation, intra-abdominal fluid collections and anastomotic leaks, allowing for early, targeted management[17,31].

Our own analyses reveal two significant yet apparently contradictory results: there is greater mortality in the no drain group, and yet fewer overall and major complications as well as a lower readmission rate. Firstly, one has to note that most of the observed differences in mortality stem from a single study[37], which happened to be the only RCT included in our analysis. In this study, there is a significantly greater proportion of intra-abdominal abscess formation, intra-abdominal fluid collections and diarrhea in the no drain group, providing us with some insight as to the cause of mortality. The remaining studies, which are non-RCTs, report similar mortality rates, yet lower overall complication rates in the no drain group. Serious complications such as bowel perforation and/or fistulation has been reported from intra-abdominal suction drains[40,41] and these devices are often associated with increased pain and prolonged hospital stay, suggesting possible mechanisms for these findings. Notably, however, analyses of individual clinically significant, PD-specific complications do not reveal statistically significant differences, apart from delayed gastric emptying. This may indicate variability in definitions between studies and highlights the drawbacks of comparative meta-analyses.

Furthermore, the indication for postoperative drainage and the type of drain could affect the incidence of complications and prognosis of patients. From the non-randomized studies included in our analysis, one reported that intra-abdominal drain placement was at the discretion of the attending surgeon[36], while another suggested that routine abdominal drainage was dependent on pancreatic texture (soft) and pancreatic duct diameter (< 3 mm)[33]. In patients with a hard pancreas and/or a dilated (> 3 mm) main pancreatic duct, the decision regarding the use of abdominal drainage was at the surgeon’s discretion. Two studies[30,35] did not report the indications for drainage, however in one of these studies, drains were more likely to be placed following resections for cholangiocarcinoma or ampullary cancer than resections for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma or cystic neoplasms[35].

The lack of adequately powered prospective studies is also a significant limiting factor in this field. The increasing use of “prospectively set-up databases” and subsequent data analysis does not overcome the inherent shortcomings of retrospectively designed studies, such as selection bias. Technical differences in pancreaticojejunostomies performed may further affect the reported complication rates. A further potential source of heterogeneity in the studies was the type of drains used. Studies either reported predominant use of closed-suction drains[30,35,37] or multichannel open-channel silicone drains[33], or did not comment at all on the type used. One study specified the use of intra-peritoneal Jackson-Pratt drains[35], which is a brand of closed-suction drain. Different types of drains (especially suction vs no suction) can impact complications such as fluid collections, and may also differentially affect the efficacy of such devices (e.g., rates of drain blockage). Differences in definitions used for major complications also presents a challenge for meta-analyses, which is why the attempt to introduce a common language for major complications such as POPF[17] is a welcome addition to the field.

Accepting the small number of studies available, in particular the scarcity of prospective studies, our analysis cannot safely favor or condemn the use of an intraperitoneal drain following PD. Indeed, looking at the only RCT designed to address this question, one is drawn to the conclusion that abandoning postoperative drainage indiscriminately following PD leads to an increase in complication rate and higher mortality. However, looking at our analysis overall there appears to be a select group of patients in whom prophylactic drainage is advantageous to avoid complications and mortality, and another in whom routine drainage is detrimental. Patients at low risk of POPF (i.e., hard pancreas, large pancreatic duct, short operative time, little intra-operative blood loss and no other concerning factors) may benefit from avoiding routine intra-abdominal drainage[33]. Further RCTs are therefore required to clarify this question in a definite manner and should be designed to compare routine with selective drainage.

COMMENTS
Background

Previously, prophylactic placement of surgical drains following abdominal surgery has been considered standard practice. However, drainage after pancreatic resection continues to be controversial especially following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

Research frontiers

The purpose of this present work was to conduct the first meta-analysis comparing outcomes after PD with or without prophylactic drainage.

Innovations and breakthroughs

Based on this meta-analysis, patients without prophylactic drainage after PD had significantly higher mortality, despite being associated with fewer complications, major complications and readmissions overall.

Applications

Indiscriminate abandoning of intra-abdominal drainage following PD appears to be associated with greater mortality, but selective use can lead to lower overall and major complication rates. Future randomized trials should compare routine vs selective drainage.

Peer-review

In the future, routine prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage may be deemed unnecessary. This is a well-written study that may be of interest for pancreatic surgeons worldwide.

Footnotes

P- Reviewer: Mishra PK, Shimizu Y S- Editor: Qi Y L- Editor: AmEditor E- Editor: Zhang DN

References
1.  Levy M. Intraperitoneal drainage. Am J Surg. 1984;147:309-314.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28]  [Article Influence: 0.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Giovinazzo F, Butturini G, Salvia R, Mascetta G, Monsellato D, Marchegiani G, Pederzoli P, Bassi C. Drain management after pancreatic resection: state of the art. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;Epub ahead of print.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
3.  Shamim M. Routine Sub-hepatic Drainage versus No Drainage after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Open, Randomized, Clinical Trial. Indian J Surg. 2013;75:22-27.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 13]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13]  [Article Influence: 1.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Liu CL, Fan ST, Lo CM, Wong Y, Ng IO, Lam CM, Poon RT, Wong J. Abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases. Ann Surg. 2004;239:194-201.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
5.  Kim J, Lee J, Hyung WJ, Cheong JH, Chen J, Choi SH, Noh SH. Gastric cancer surgery without drains: a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:727-732.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 80]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pélissier E, Msika S, Flamant Y. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery. 1999;125:529-535.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 147]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 121]  [Article Influence: 4.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Reid-Lombardo KM, Farnell MB, Crippa S, Barnett M, Maupin G, Bassi C, Traverso LW. Pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy in 1,507 patients: a report from the Pancreatic Anastomotic Leak Study Group. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1451-148; discussion 1459.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 189]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 188]  [Article Influence: 11.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Clavien PA. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: A novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244:931-937; discussion 931-937.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 578]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 597]  [Article Influence: 35.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Yamaguchi M, Nakano H, Midorikawa T, Yoshizawa Y, Sanada Y, Kumada K. Prediction of pancreatic fistula by amylase levels of drainage fluid on the first day after pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005;50:1155-1158.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
10.  Cullen JJ, Sarr MG, Ilstrup DM. Pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, significance, and management. Am J Surg. 1994;168:295-298.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 230]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 234]  [Article Influence: 7.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Grobmyer SR, Graham D, Brennan MF, Coit D. High-pressure gradients generated by closed-suction surgical drainage systems. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2002;3:245-249.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 53]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 55]  [Article Influence: 3.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Silberfein EJ, Artinyan A, Ahern CH, Jo E, Brunicardi FC. Pancreatic resection without routine intraperitoneal drainage. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13:503-510.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 84]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81]  [Article Influence: 6.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Büchler MW, Friess H. Evidence forward, drainage on retreat: still we ignore and drain!? Ann Surg. 2006;244:8-9.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
14.  Veillette G, Dominguez I, Ferrone C, Thayer SP, McGrath D, Warshaw AL, Fernández-del Castillo C. Implications and management of pancreatic fistulas following pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Arch Surg. 2008;143:476-481.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 89]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 89]  [Article Influence: 5.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, Butturini G, Crippa S, Talamini G, Falconi M, Pederzoli P. Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;246:281-287.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 230]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 240]  [Article Influence: 14.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-29, W64.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 18463]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17302]  [Article Influence: 1153.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8-13.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3282]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3441]  [Article Influence: 181.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (34)]
18.  Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187-196.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6210]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7830]  [Article Influence: 522.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761-768.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1771]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2135]  [Article Influence: 125.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20-25.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
21.  Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 12275]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12630]  [Article Influence: 451.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  McKay A, Mackenzie S, Sutherland FR, Bathe OF, Doig C, Dort J, Vollmer CM, Dixon E. Meta-analysis of pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2006;93:929-936.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
23.  Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 39087]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43703]  [Article Influence: 2081.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
24.  Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med. 1987;6:341-350.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 854]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 769]  [Article Influence: 20.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 26739]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29277]  [Article Influence: 770.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
26.  Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323:101-105.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1519]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1486]  [Article Influence: 64.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Kawai M, Tani M, Terasawa H, Ina S, Hirono S, Nishioka R, Miyazawa M, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H. Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection: prospective study for 104 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2006;244:1-7.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 343]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 351]  [Article Influence: 19.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, Crippa S, Butturini G, Salvia R, Talamini G, Pederzoli P. Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207-214.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 355]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 374]  [Article Influence: 26.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
29.  Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Abe N, Matsuoka H, Yanagida O, Masaki T, Mori T, Atomi Y. Secure placement of a peripancreatic drain after a distal pancreatectomy. Am J Surg. 2010;199:178-182.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Heslin MJ, Harrison LE, Brooks AD, Hochwald SN, Coit DG, Brennan MF. Is intra-abdominal drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy? J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2:373-378.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 91]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 93]  [Article Influence: 3.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
31.  Conlon KC, Labow D, Leung D, Smith A, Jarnagin W, Coit DG, Merchant N, Brennan MF. Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg. 2001;234:487-493; discussion 493-494.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 407]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 367]  [Article Influence: 16.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
32.  Paulus EM, Zarzaur BL, Behrman SW. Routine peritoneal drainage of the surgical bed after elective distal pancreatectomy: is it necessary? Am J Surg. 2012;204:422-427.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 34]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29]  [Article Influence: 2.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Lim C, Dokmak S, Cauchy F, Aussilhou B, Belghiti J, Sauvanet A. Selective policy of no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy is a valid option in patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula: a case-control analysis. World J Surg. 2013;37:1021-1027.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27]  [Article Influence: 2.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
34.  Adham M, Chopin-Laly X, Lepilliez V, Gincul R, Valette PJ, Ponchon T. Pancreatic resection: drain or no drain? Surgery. 2013;154:1069-1077.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 50]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53]  [Article Influence: 4.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
35.  Correa-Gallego C, Brennan MF, Dʼangelica M, Fong Y, Dematteo RP, Kingham TP, Jarnagin WR, Allen PJ. Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1051-1058.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 121]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 116]  [Article Influence: 11.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
36.  Mehta VV, Fisher SB, Maithel SK, Sarmiento JM, Staley CA, Kooby DA. 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; discussion 642-4.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 75]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81]  [Article Influence: 7.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
37.  Van Buren G, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, Winter J, Behrman SW, Zyromski NJ, Vollmer C, Velanovich V, Riall T, Muscarella P. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;259:605-612.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 276]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 265]  [Article Influence: 26.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
38.  Zink SI, Soloff EV, White RR, Clary BM, Tyler DS, Pappas TN, Paulson EK. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: frequency and outcome of post-operative imaging-guided percutaneous drainage. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:767-771.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 26]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
39.  Diener MK, Tadjalli-Mehr K, Wente MN, Kieser M, Büchler MW, Seiler CM. Risk-benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:41-52.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 59]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 61]  [Article Influence: 4.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
40.  Reed MW, Wyman A, Thomas WE, Zeiderman MR. Perforation of the bowel by suction drains. Br J Surg. 1992;79:679.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 23]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
41.  Gray AJ, Copeland GP. Small bowel perforation following vacuum suction drainage. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1985;30:324-325.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]