 |
|
Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage After Elective Colonic Resection and Suprapromontory Anastomosis
A Multicenter Study Controlled by Randomization
Fethi Merad, MD;
Elie Yahchouchi, MD;
Jean-Marie Hay, MD;
Abe Fingerhut, MD;
Yves Laborde, MD;
Odile Langlois-Zantain, MD;
for the French Associations for Surgical Research
Arch Surg. 1998;133:309-314.
Background Only 4 controlled trials have investigated whether prophylactic abdominal drainage was of value after colonic resection. None have been able to find any statistically significant difference, but the number of patients was small and the  error risk was high.
Objectives To compare patients who underwent abdominal drainage with those who did not for the rate and severity of complications after elective colonic resection followed immediately by anastomosis of the suprapromontory colon and to compare suction drains with nonsuction drains.
Patients Between September 1990 and June 1995, 319 patients (135 men and 184 women), whose mean age was 67 years (range, 22-95 years), with carcinoma, benign tumors, or colitis, located anywhere between the ascending and sigmoid colons, were included in the study. Patients were comparable for demographic characteristics, except that there were more patients with ascites in the group that did not undergo abdominal drainage (P<.02).
Interventions After 2 protocol violations, 156 patients were randomized to the abdominal drainage group and 161 to the no abdominal drainage group. All 317 anastomoses were tested for airtightness intraoperatively and repaired if leakage was found (n=71), and all patients with anastomoses received a routine diatrizoate sodium enema to detect infraclinical leakage.
Main Outcome Measures The postoperative complications possibly influenced by drainage included (1) deep complications for which drainage can lead to early diagnosis, such as generalized or localized peritonitis, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, or hematoma; (2) complications believed to be enhanced by drainage, such as an operative wound (an abscess, disruption, or incisional hernia) or pulmonary (microatelectasis) and intestinal obstructions; and (3) complications directly due to the drains, such as ulcerations leading to fistulae, hemorrhages, drainage tract infections, difficulty in removal, intra-abdominal retention, and incisional disruptions. Subsidiary end points were the severity of these complications as assessed by the number of related subsequent operations and deaths.
Results Twenty-six patients overall (8%) had postoperative complications possibly influenced by drainage (9% in the group that underwent abdominal drainage and 8% in the group that did not). This difference was not statistically significant (P<.90). One patient had a fistula directly imputable to drainage. There was no difference between suction and nonsuction drainage (P<.90).
Conclusions Routine abdominal drainage after colonic resection and immediate anastomosis decreases neither the rate nor the severity of anastomotic leakage. It can, occasionally, be detrimental.
From the Surgery Units, Hôpital Louis Mourier, Colombes (Drs Merad, Yahchouchi, and Hay), Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy (Dr Fingerhut), Hôpital Hauterive, Pau (Dr Laborde), and Centre Hospitalier, Montluçon (Dr Langlois-Zantain), France.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Povidone-Iodine vs Sodium Hypochlorite Enema for Mechanical Preparation Before Elective Open Colonic or Rectal Resection With Primary Anastomosis--Invited Critique
Galandiuk
Arch Surg 2006;141:1175-1175.
FULL TEXT
Risk Factors for Postoperative Infectious Complications in Noncolorectal Abdominal Surgery: A Multivariate Analysis Based on a Prospective Multicenter Study of 4718 Patients
Pessaux et al.
Arch Surg 2003;138:314-324.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
