Surgical drain placement in distal pancreatectomy is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula and higher readmission rates
Background Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) can result in significant morbidity after distal pancreatectomy (DP). It is common practice to place prophylactic surgical drains during DP to monitor and minimize POPF complications; however, their use is controversial. Objective The aim of this st...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of surgical oncology 2020-09, Vol.122 (4), p.723-728 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) can result in significant morbidity after distal pancreatectomy (DP). It is common practice to place prophylactic surgical drains during DP to monitor and minimize POPF complications; however, their use is controversial.
Objective
The aim of this study is to determine if drainage helps to prevent adverse outcomes and decrease the need for additional interventions after DP.
Methods
All patients who underwent DP without vascular resection were identified in the 2014 Targeted Pancreatectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File. Patients undergoing emergency procedures, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 5, or diagnosed with preoperative sepsis were excluded. Univariate and multiple variable analyses were performed to evaluate postoperative outcomes based on use of surgical drain.
Results
A total of 1158 patients (age median: 62; interquartile range: 16; female 58.6%) underwent elective DP with 85.1% (n = 985) having drain placed at time of operation. Laparoscopic technique was used in the majority of patients (54.1%, n = 619). POPF occurred in 201 patients (17.5%). Additional percutaneous drain was required in 106 patients (9.2%). POPF was higher in surgical drain group, 19.4% vs 6.9% (P .05). However, readmission was higher in the surgical drain group, 17.8% vs 10.4% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1‐3.1; P = .018). After adjusting for age, ASA, and operative time, readmission remained higher in the surgical drain group (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.1‐3.2; P = .016).
Conclusion
The use of surgical drainage during DP was associated with increased incidence of readmission and POPF. Drainage showed no effect on outcomes of postoperative sepsis, shock, major complications, reoperation, and 30‐day mortality. Based on these results, routine prophylactic drainage should be reconsidered for patients undergoing DP. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0022-4790 1096-9098 |
DOI: | 10.1002/jso.26072 |