-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Patients with obstructive jaundice have various pathophysiological changes that affect the liver, kidney, heart, and the immune system. There is considerable controversy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with obstructive jaundice have various pathophysiological changes that affect the liver, kidney, heart, and the immune system. There is considerable controversy as to whether temporary relief of biliary obstruction prior to major definitive surgery (pre-operative biliary drainage) is of any benefit to the patient.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of pre-operative biliary drainage versus no pre-operative biliary drainage (direct surgery) in patients with obstructive jaundice (irrespective of a benign or malignant cause).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised clinical trials comparing biliary drainage followed by surgery versus direct surgery, performed for obstructive jaundice, irrespective of the sample size, language, and publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on the available patient analyses. We assessed the risk of bias (systematic overestimation of benefit or systematic underestimation of harm) with components of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We assessed the risk of play of chance (random errors) with trial sequential analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials with 520 patients comparing pre-operative biliary drainage (265 patients) versus no pre-operative biliary drainage (255 patients). Four trials used percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and two trials used endoscopic sphincterotomy and stenting as the method of pre-operative biliary drainage. The risk of bias was high in all trials. The proportion of patients with malignant obstruction varied between 60% and 100%. There was no significant difference in mortality (40/265, weighted proportion 14.9%) in the pre-operative biliary drainage group versus the direct surgery group (34/255, 13.3%) (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.71; P = 0.60). The overall serious morbidity was higher in the pre-operative biliary drainage group (60 per 100 patients in the pre-operative biliary drainage group versus 26 per 100 patients in the direct surgery group) (RaR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.16; P = 0.0002). The proportion of patients who developed serious morbidity was significantly higher in the pre-operative biliary drainage group (75/102, 73.5%) in the pre-operative biliary drainage group versus the direct surgery group (37/94, 37.4%) (P < 0.001). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay (2 trials, 271 patients; MD 4.87 days; 95% CI -1.28 to 11.02; P = 0.12) between the two groups. Trial sequential analysis showed that for mortality only a small proportion of the required information size had been obtained. There seemed to be no significant differences in the subgroup of trials assessing percutaneous compared to endoscopic drainage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently not sufficient evidence to support or refute routine pre-operative biliary drainage for patients with obstructive jaundice. Pre-operative biliary drainage may increase the rate of serious adverse events. So, the safety of routine pre-operative biliary drainage has not been established. Pre-operative biliary drainage should not be used in patients undergoing surgery for obstructive jaundice outside randomised clinical trials.
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Jaundice, Obstructive; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stents
PubMed: 22972086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005444.pub3 -
Acta Medica Portuguesa Oct 1994The invasive procedures handled by the pulmonologist in the diagnosis of lung disease have greatly expanded over the last decade (transbronchial, percutaneous or... (Review)
Review
The invasive procedures handled by the pulmonologist in the diagnosis of lung disease have greatly expanded over the last decade (transbronchial, percutaneous or thoracoscopic pulmonary biopsy and needle aspiration). The growing number of intensive care units with facilities in mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic support has also modified the approach of the critically ill patient. Pneumothorax and hemothorax are well-known complications related to these diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Other areas of interest and up-to-date are diagnostic thoracoscopy in pleural disease, chemical pleurodesis in patients with pneumothorax or malignant pleural effusion, and the administration of intrapleural fibrinolytics in the treatment of empyema. This evolution implicates that the pulmonologist and the intensivist be skilled in the management of chest tubes. In this article we review the indications, some technical topics and the principal complications related to the placement of thoracic drains.
Topics: Chest Tubes; Drainage; Humans; Lung Diseases
PubMed: 7856462
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 29928755
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... May 2014
Topics: Chest Tubes; Drainage; Humans; Suture Techniques
PubMed: 24895768
DOI: 10.1308/003588414X13946184900642 -
Applied Health Economics and Health... Jun 2019The Thopaz+ portable digital system was evaluated by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).... (Review)
Review
The Thopaz+ portable digital system was evaluated by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The manufacturer, Medela, submitted a case for the adoption of Thopaz+ that was critiqued by Cedar, on behalf of NICE. Due to a lack of clinical evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Cedar carried out its own literature search. Clinical evidence showed that the use of Thopaz+ led to shorter drainage times, a shorter hospital stay, lower rates of chest drain re-insertion and higher patient satisfaction compared to conventional chest drainage when used in patients following pulmonary resection. One comparative study of the use of Thopaz+ in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax was identified and showed shorter drainage times and a shorter length of hospital stay compared to conventional drainage. No economic evidence was submitted by the manufacturer, but a simple decision tree model was included. The model was improved by Cedar and showed a cost saving of £111.33 per patient when Thopaz+ was used instead of conventional chest drainage in patients following pulmonary resection. Cedar also carried out a sub-group analysis of the use of Thopaz+ instead of conventional drainage in patients with pneumothorax where a cost saving of £550.90 was observed. The main cost driver for the model and sub-group analysis was length of stay. The sub-group analysis was based on a single comparative study. However, the MTAC received details of an unpublished audit of Thopaz+ which confirmed its efficacy in treating patients with pneumothorax. Thopaz+ received a positive recommendation in Medical Technologies Guidance 37.
Topics: Chest Tubes; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drainage; Humans; Monitoring, Physiologic; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 30671917
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00461-y -
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory... 2022Bronchopleural fistula is a serious complication of pneumonectomy and lobectomy and results in a reduction in the quality of life of patients. This study aimed to...
OBJECTIVES
Bronchopleural fistula is a serious complication of pneumonectomy and lobectomy and results in a reduction in the quality of life of patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous drainage tube placement with continuous negative pressure drainage for the treatment of peripheral bronchopleural fistula.
METHODS
Data of 16 patients with peripheral bronchopleural fistula were retrospectively analyzed. A percutaneous thoracic drainage tube was placed under fluoroscopy and connected with a negative pressure suction device. The drainage tube was removed when the residual cavity disappeared on computed tomography.
RESULTS
All 16 patients underwent lobectomy, including 11 patients with lung cancer (68.8%), 4 patients with pulmonary infection (25.0%), and 1 patient with hemoptysis (6.3%). All patients underwent successful drainage tube placement on the first attempt with a technical success rate of 100%. No serious complications occurred during or after the procedure. The drainage tubes were adjusted 3.25 ± 2.24 times (range: 1-8 times). A total of 30 drainage tubes were used (average per patient, 1.88 ± 1.36 tubes). The cure time of 16 patients was 114.94 ± 101.08 days (range, 30-354 days). The median drainage tube indwelling duration was 87 days, and the 75th percentile was 117 days.
CONCLUSION
Interventional percutaneous thoracic drainage tube placement with continuous negative pressure drainage is an effective, safe, and feasible method for the treatment of peripheral bronchopleural fistula.
Topics: Bronchial Fistula; Drainage; Humans; Pleural Diseases; Pneumonectomy; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35848793
DOI: 10.1177/17534666221111877 -
RoFo : Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der... Apr 2022Lymphoceles often occur within several weeks or even months after surgery. Mostly asymptomatic and therefore undiagnosed, they may be self-healing without any treatment....
PURPOSE
Lymphoceles often occur within several weeks or even months after surgery. Mostly asymptomatic and therefore undiagnosed, they may be self-healing without any treatment. A small percentage of postoperative lymphoceles are symptomatic with significant pain, infection, or compression of vital structures, thus requiring intervention. Many different treatment options are described in the literature, like drainage with or without sclerotherapy, embolization of lymph vessels, and surgical approaches with laparoscopy or laparotomy. Inspired by reports stating that postoperative suction drainage can prevent the formation of lymphoceles, we developed a simple protocol for vacuum-assisted drainage of symptomatic lymphoceles, which proved to be successful and which we would therefore like to present.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Between 2008 and 2020, 35 patients with symptomatic postoperative lymphoceles were treated with vacuum-assisted suction drainage (in total 39 lymphoceles). The surgery that caused lymphocele formation had been performed between 8 and 572 days before. All lymphoceles were diagnosed based on biochemical and cytologic findings in aspirated fluid. The clinical and imaging data were collected and retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS
In total, 43 suction drainage catheters were inserted under CT guidance. The technical success rate was 100 %. One patient died of severe preexisting pulmonary embolism, sepsis, and poor conditions (non-procedure-related death). In 94.8 % of symptomatic lymphoceles, healing and total disappearance could be achieved. 4 lymphoceles had a relapse or dislocation of the drainage catheter and needed a second drainage procedure. Two lymphoceles needed further surgery. The complication rate of the procedure was 4.6 % (2/43, minor complications). The median indwelling time of a suction drainage catheter was 8-9 days (range: 1-30 days).
CONCLUSION
The positive effects of negative pressure therapy in local wound therapy have been investigated for a long time. These positive effects also seem to have an impact on suction drainage of symptomatic lymphoceles with a high cure rate.
KEY POINTS
· Suction drainage of lymphoceles is an easy and successful method to cure symptomatic lymphoceles at various locations.. · We believe this to be due to the induction of cavity collapse and surface adherence.. · In most cases rapid clinical improvement could be obtained..
CITATION FORMAT
· Franke M, Saager C, Kröger J et al. Vacuum-Assisted Suction Drainage as a Successful Treatment Option for Postoperative Symptomatic Lymphoceles. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 384 - 390.
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Lymphocele; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Suction
PubMed: 34649288
DOI: 10.1055/a-1586-3652 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Jun 2012External drainage of the common bile duct by placement of a T-tube is a common practice after choledochotomy. This practice may result in the specific complication of... (Review)
Review
External drainage of the common bile duct by placement of a T-tube is a common practice after choledochotomy. This practice may result in the specific complication of bile peritonitis due to leakage after removal of the T-tube. This complication has multiple causes: some are patient-related (corticotherapy, chemotherapy, ascites), and others are due to technical factors (inappropriate suturing of the drain to the ductal wall, minimal inflammatory reaction related to some drain materials). The clinical presentation is quite variable depending on the amount and rapidity of intra-peritoneal spread of of bile leakage. Abdominal ultrasound (US), with US-guided needle aspiration and occasionally Technetium(99) scintigraphy are useful for diagnosis. Traditional therapy consists of surgical intervention including peritoneal lavage and re-intubation of the choledochal fistulous tract to allow for a further period of external drainage. When leakage is walled off and well-tolerated, a more nuanced and less invasive conservative therapy may combine percutaneous drainage with endoscopic placement of a trans-ampullary biliary drainage.
Topics: Bile; Choledocholithiasis; Common Bile Duct; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Peritonitis; Postoperative Care
PubMed: 22537812
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.03.008 -
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Jan 2013Hilar cholangiocarcinoma has an extremely poor prognosis and is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Palliative management plays an important role in the treatment of... (Review)
Review
Hilar cholangiocarcinoma has an extremely poor prognosis and is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Palliative management plays an important role in the treatment of patients with inoperable hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical, percutaneous, and endoscopic biliary drainage are three modalities available to resolve obstructive jaundice. Plastic stents were widely used in the past; however, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) have become popular recently due to their long patency and reduced risk of side branch obstruction, and SEMS are now the accepted treatment of choice for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Bilateral drainage provides more normal and physiological biliary flow through the biliary ductal system than that of unilateral drainage. Unilateral drainage was preferred until recently because of its technical simplicity. But, with advancements in technology, bilateral drainage now achieves a high success rate and is the preferred treatment modality in many centers. However, the choice of unilateral or bilateral drainage is still controversial, and more studies are needed. This review focuses on the endoscopic method and discusses stent materials and types of procedures for patients with a hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Endoscopy; Humans; Prosthesis Design; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23345990
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2013.28.1.8 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Dec 2022Insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is a common neurosurgical procedure which may lead to serious complications including infection. Some risk factors... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is a common neurosurgical procedure which may lead to serious complications including infection. Some risk factors associated with EVD infection are well established. Others remain less certain, including specific indications for placement, prior neurosurgery, and prior EVD placement.
OBJECTIVE
To identify risk factors for EVD infections.
METHODS
We reviewed all EVD insertions at our institution from March 2015 through May 2019 following implementation of a standardized infection control protocol for EVD insertion and maintenance. Cox regression was used to identify risk factors for EVD infections.
RESULTS
479 EVDs placed in 409 patients met inclusion criteria, and 9 culture-positive infections were observed during the study period. The risk of infection within 30 days of EVD placement was 2.2% (2.3 infections/1,000 EVD days). Coagulase-negative staphylococci were identified in 6 of the 9 EVD infections). EVD infection led to prolonged length of stay post-EVD-placement (23 days vs 16 days; = .045). Cox regression demonstrated increased infection risk in patients with prior brain surgery associated with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion (HR, 8.08; 95% CI, 1.7-39.4; = .010), CSF leak around the catheter (HR, 21.0; 95% CI, 7.0-145.1; = .0007), and insertion site dehiscence (HR, 7.53; 95% CI, 1.04-37.1; = .0407). Duration of EVD use >7 days was not associated with infection risk (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.07-5.45; = .669).
CONCLUSION
Risk factors associated with EVD infection include prior brain surgery, CSF leak, and insertion site dehiscence. We found no significant association between infection risk and duration of EVD placement.
Topics: Humans; Ventriculostomy; Drainage; Retrospective Studies; Catheters; Risk Factors; Infections
PubMed: 35471129
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2022.23