Drain after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized multicentre controlled trial

Background Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still debatable. The present study was designed to assess the role of drains in laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed for nonacutely inflamed gallbladder. Methods After laparoscopic gallbladder removal, 53 patients were randomized to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2012-10, Vol.26 (10), p.2817-2822
Hauptverfasser: Picchio, Marcello, De Angelis, Francesco, Zazza, Settimio, Di Filippo, Annalisa, Mancini, Raffaello, Pattaro, Giada, Stipa, Francesco, Adisa, Adewale Oluseye, Marino, Giuseppe, Spaziani, Erasmo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still debatable. The present study was designed to assess the role of drains in laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed for nonacutely inflamed gallbladder. Methods After laparoscopic gallbladder removal, 53 patients were randomized to have a suction drain positioned in the subhepatic space and 53 patients to have a sham drain. The primary outcome measure was the presence of subhepatic fluid collection at abdominal ultrasonography, performed 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were postoperative abdominal and shoulder tip pain, use of analgesics, nausea, vomiting, and morbidity. Results Subhepatic fluid collection was not found in 45 patients (84.9 %) in group A and in 46 patients (86.8 %) in group B (difference 1.9 (95 % confidence interval −11.37 to 15.17; P  = 0.998). No significant difference in visual analogue scale scores with respect to abdominal and shoulder pain, use of parenteral ketorolac, nausea, and vomiting were found in either group. Two (1.9 %) significant hemorrhagic events occurred postoperatively. Wound infection was observed in three patients (5.7 %) in group A and two patients (3.8 %) in group B (difference 1.9 (95 % CI −6.19 to 9.99; P  = 0.997). Conclusions The present study was unable to prove that the drain was useful in elective, uncomplicated LC.
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-012-2252-1