Study of the patency of different peritoneal drains used prophylactically in bariatric surgery

Table 1 Individual characteristics of the experimental groups

	Group 1-Latex	Group 2-Watterman	Group 3-Blake
Age (yr)	35.45 ± 7.56	36.18 ± 10.68	39.81 ± 9.52
Gender: M/F	3/8	3/8	1/10
Weight (kg)	138.48 ± 17.58	135.98 ± 19.86	140.30 ± 24.58

Data are reported as mean ± SD.

Table 2 Volume of liquid collected daily with each type of drain

Postoperative days	Group 1 Latex	Group 2 Watterman	Group 3 Blake	P
Day 1	146 ± 57.5	190 ± 178.6	150 ± 79	0.656
Day 2	89 ± 74.1	96.7 ± 68.8	168.2 ± 107.6	0.091
Day 3	29.4 ± 27.7	57.3 ± 53	107.5 ± 79.2	0.016
Day 4	25.3 ± 16.6	34.8 ± 39.3	106.2 ± 106.5	0.021
Day 5	28.3 ± 40.7	34.1 ± 30.4	123.5 ± 105.3	0.005
Day 6	26.8 ± 40.6	21.3 ± 17	88.5 ± 51.8	0.001
Day 7	26.9 ± 36	19.5 ± 18.6	89.7 ± 76	0.007

Results in milliliters and represented by mean ± SD. P value obtained by ANOVA.

Table 3 Paired comparison between the drains, regarding the drained volumes

Postoperative days	Blake vs Watterman	Blake vs Latex	Latex vs Watterman
Day 1	P > 0.05	P > 0.05	P > 0.05
Day 2	P > 0.05	P > 0.05	P > 0.05
Day 3	P > 0.05	P < 0.05	P > 0.05
Day 4	P < 0.05	P < 0.05	P > 0.05
Day 5	P < 0.05	P < 0.05	P > 0.05
Day 6	P < 0.01	P < 0.01	P > 0.05
Day 7	P < 0.05	P < 0.05	P > 0.05

P value obtained by the Tukey post-test.

Table 4 Microbiology of the fluid drained from the peritoneal cavity and from a part of the intraperitoneal segment of the drain

	Group 1-Latex	Group 2-Watterman	Group 3-Blake
Patient 1	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Enterobacter cloacae1	Staphylococcus aureus
	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Escherichia coli1	Staphylococcus aureus
Patient 2	Enterobacter aerogenes	Proteus mirabilis	Proteus mirabilis
	Enterobacter aerogenes	Proteus mirabilis	Pseudomonas aeruginosa + Morganella morgani
Patient 3	Klebsiella pneumoniae + Staphylococcus simulans	Serratia marcescens	Staphylococcus aureus + Proteus mirabilis + Enterobacter cloacae
	Staphylococcus aureus + Klebsiella pneumoniae + Morganella morgani + Proteus mirabilis	Serratia marcescens	Serratia marcescens + Enterococcus faecalis
Patient 4	Serratia marcescens	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Proteus mirabilis + Klebsiella pneumoniae + Enterococcus faecalis
	Serratia marcescens	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Staphylococcus aureus + Proteus mirabilis
Patient 5	Escherichia coli + Proteus mirabilis	Enterobacter cloacae	Proteus mirabilis
	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Klebsiella pneumoniae	Proteus mirabilis
Patient 6	Citrobacter koseri	Proteus vulgaris	Klebsiella pneumoniae + Proteus mirabilis
	Proteus mirabilis + Citrobacter koseri	Proteus vulgaris	Klebsiella pneumoniae + Proteus mirabilis
Patient 7	Staphylococcus aureus + Proteus mirabilis	Pseudomonas aeruginosa + Klebsiella pneumoniae	-
	Staphylococcus aureus + Proteus mirabilis	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	-
Patient 8	Proteus mirabilis	Enterococcus faecalis + Staphylococcus aureus	-
	Proteus mirabilis + Serratia marcescens	Enterococcus faecalis + Staphylococcus aureus	-
Patient 9	Enterobacter cloacae	Escherichia coli	Staphylococcus epidermidis
	Enterobacter cloacae	Escherichia coli	Staphylococcus aureus
Patient 10	Escherichia coli + Enterococcus faecalis	Enterococcus faecalis	Staphylococcus simulans
	Morganella morganii	Enterococcus faecalis	Klebsiella pneumoniae
Patient 11	Enterobacter cloacae	Proteus mirabilis + Kebsiella pneumoniae	Staphylococcus epidermidis
	Enterobacter cloacae	Proteus mirabilis	Staphylococcus epidermidis

¹Patient with a methylene blue test that was positive for dehiscence.

Table 5 Subjective evaluation of the ease of handling and comfort of the abdominal drains

	Blake	Watterman	Latex
Ease of emptying the collecting bag
Very easy	7	7	9
Easy	3	4	2
Difficult	1	0	0
Very difficult	0	0	0
Odor during the dressings
None	9	1	5
Bad	2	3	3
Very bad	0	7	3
Pain at the drain site (pain scale)
0 (no pain)	6	5	2
1	2	3	3
2	2	2	0
3	3	1	3
4	0	0	1
5 (very intense pain)	0	0	2
Pain during drain removal (pain scale)
0 (no pain)	7	4	3
1	2	6	2
2	2	1	1
3	0	0	2
4	0	0	1
5 (very intense pain)	0	0	2