Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background. The abdominal drainage with a prophylactic purpose was used by surgeons for decades because of the possibility to detect early signs of postoperative complications. However, the real value of routine drainage after abdominal surgery is still debated. There are discrepancies between studies supporting the drain placement only in patients with intraoperative complications and works showing a beneficial effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage on postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. However, there is still a lack of evidence on the use of routine abdominal drainage following laparoscopic cholecystectomy and its clinical value. Current guidelines do not mention the role of drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Objective: to evaluate whether conventional postoperative drainage is more effective than no drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and methods. A search in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library was conducted for randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with and without an abdominal drainage until January 2024. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and meta-analysis — using fixed and random effects models. Odds ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) for qualitative variables and mean difference (MD) with CI for continuous variables were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0. Results. Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 5,185 patients (2,592 with drains vs 2,593 without them) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of intra-abdominal fluid accumulation (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64–1.19; p = 0.39) between two groups. Abdominal drains did not reduce the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 0.85–2.70; p = 0 .16) or shoulder pain (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.58–1.41; p = 0.65). The abdominal drain group reported significantly higher pain scores (MD = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.37–0.98; p < 0.001) than patients without drains. Abdominal drainage increased operative time (MD = 3.82; 95% CI: 1.93–5.70; p < 0.001) but not the length of hospital stay after surgery (MD = 0.42; 95% CI: –0.02–0.85; p = 0.06). Wound infection (OR = 3.26; 95% CI: 2.35–4.51; p < 0.001), fever (OR = 4.40; 95% CI: 2.57–7.8554; p < 0.001) and pneumonia (OR = 4.74; 95% CI: 2.25–9.97; p < 0.001) were found to be associated with the use of abdominal drains. Conclusions. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in non-complicated benign gallbladder disease. No drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and associated with fewer complications. Postoperative recovery is improved if drain is not used. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.
Background. The abdominal drainage with a prophylactic purpose was used by surgeons for decades because of the possibility to detect early signs of postoperative complications. However, the real value of routine drainage after abdominal surgery is still debated. There are discrepancies between studies supporting the drain placement only in patients with intraoperative complications and works showing a beneficial effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage on postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. However, there is still a lack of evidence on the use of routine abdominal drainage following laparoscopic cholecystectomy and its clinical value. Current guidelines do not mention the role of drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Objective: to evaluate whether conventional postoperative drainage is more effective than no drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and methods. A search in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library was conducted for randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with and without an abdominal drainage until January 2024. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and meta-analysis — using fixed and random effects models. Odds ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) for qualitative variables and mean difference (MD) with CI for continuous variables were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0. Results. Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 5,185 patients (2,592 with drains vs 2,593 without them) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of intra-abdominal fluid accumulation (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64–1.19; p = 0.39) between two groups. Abdominal drains did not reduce the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 0.85–2.70; p = 0 .16) or shoulder pain (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.58–1.41; p = 0.65). The abdominal drain group reported significantly higher pain scores (MD = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.37–0.98; p < 0.001) than patients without drains. Abdominal drainage increased operative time (MD = 3.82; 95% CI: 1.93–5.70; p < 0.001) but not the length of hospital stay after surgery (MD = 0.42; 95% CI: –0.02–0.85; p = 0.06). Wound infection (OR = 3.26; 95% CI: 2.35–4.51; p < 0.001), fever (OR = 4.40; 95% CI: 2.57–7.8554; p < 0.001) and pneumonia (OR = 4.74; 95% CI: 2.25–9.97; p < 0.001) were found to be associated with the use of abdominal drains. Conclusions. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in non-complicated benign gallbladder disease. No drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and associated with fewer complications. Postoperative recovery is improved if drain is not used. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.