BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Meta-Analysis
©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28, 2015; 21(8): 2510-2521
Published online Feb 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i8.2510
Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Yi-Chao Wang, Peter Szatmary, Jing-Qiang Zhu, Jun-Jie Xiong, Wei Huang, Ilias Gomatos, Quentin M Nunes, Robert Sutton, Xu-Bao Liu
Yi-Chao Wang, Jing-Qiang Zhu, Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
Peter Szatmary, Wei Huang, Ilias Gomatos, Quentin M Nunes, Robert Sutton, NIHR Liverpool Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, University of Liverpool, L69 3GA Liverpool, United Kingdom
Jun-Jie Xiong, Xu-Bao Liu, Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
Author contributions: Wang YC and Szatmary P contributed equally to this work; Zhu JQ, Liu XB and Sutton R designed the research, and corrected and approved the manuscript; Wang YC, Szatmary P, Xiong JJ, Huang W, Gomatos I and Nunes QM developed the literature search and carried out statistical analysis of the studies; Wang YC, Szatmary P, Xiong JJ and Huang W performed data extraction; Wang YC and Szatmary P wrote the manuscript; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to: Jing-Qiang Zhu, MD, Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Road, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China. jingqiangzhu@163.com
Telephone: +86-28-85422469 Fax: +86-28-85422872
Received: June 17, 2014
Peer-review started: June 17, 2014
First decision: July 9, 2014
Revised: July 26, 2014
Accepted: September 19, 2014
Article in press: September 19, 2014
Published online: February 28, 2015
Processing time: 256 Days and 0.5 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with or without prophylactic drainage.

METHODS: Relevant comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were systemically searched based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with and those without routine drainage. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects or random effects models.

RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and four non-randomized comparative studies recruiting 1728 patients were analyzed. Patients without prophylactic drainage after PD had significantly higher mortality (OR = 2.32, 95%CI: 1.11-4.85; P = 0.02), despite the fact that they were associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.48-0.82; P = 0.00), major complications (OR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.93; P = 0.01) and readmissions (OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.60-0.98; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the rates of pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal abscesses, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation or radiologic-guided drains between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Indiscriminate abandonment of intra-abdominal drainage following PD is associated with greater mortality, but lower complication rates. Future randomized trials should compare routine vs selective drainage.

Keywords: Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Drain; Meta-analysis; Morbidity; Postoperative pancreatic fistula

Core tip: Routine prophylactic drainage remains standard practice following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) due to concerns that abandoning this would not be safe. Existing studies provide limited evidence regarding prophylactic drainage following PD. A systematic review addressing postoperative drainage following PD is therefore required. This study clarified that indiscriminate abandonment of intra-abdominal drainage following PD is associated with greater mortality, but lower overall and major complication rates. However, future randomized trials are needed to compare routine vs selective drainage.

Write to the Help Desk