Absence of abdominal drainage after surgery for secondary lower gastrointestinal tract peritonitis is a valid strategy

Abstract

Background

Management of abdominal drainage after surgery for secondary lower gastrointestinal tract peritonitis (LGTP) is not a standardized procedure. A monocentric study was carried out in 2016 in our centre. (PI study) to evaluate the interest of drainage. Our objective was to revaluate, our actual use of abdominal drainage after peritonitis (PII study).

Study design

We examined retrospectively patients who underwent surgery for secondary sub-mesocolic community-acquired peritonitis (January 2016–December 2019). Study exclusion criteria were primary peritonitis, peritoneal dialysis, nosocomial peritonitis, postoperative peritonitis, upper gastrointestinal tract peritonitis, peritonitis due to appendicitis, peritonitis requiring the implementation of Mikulicz’s drain, and peritonitis in which the peritoneum was not described in the surgical report (i.e., the same criteria that the PI study which included 141 patients from January 2009 to January 2012). The primary endpoint was the rate of abdominal drainage. The secondary endpoints were the patient rate without a peritoneum description, major complications rate (Clavien ≥III), abscess rate, mortality rate and the length of stay in the non-drain group (D – ) and in the drain group (D + ) in PII study. Primary and secondary endpoints were also compared between PI and PII studies. Risk factors for post-operative abscess were also research.

Results

Of the 150 patients included 33% were drained vs 84% of the 141 patients included in PI study (p < 0.001). In PII study peritoneum was described in 80.3% of patients vs 69% in PI study (NS, p = 0.06). Comparing the two groups D –  and D + , no significant differences were found in major complications (respectively 45% vs 32%, p = 0.1), reoperation rate (respectively 25% vs 22%, p = 0.7), death rate (respectively 25% vs 14%; p = 0.1) and mean length of stay (respectively 12 days vs 13 days, p = 0.9). The abscess rate was significantly lower in the D –  group (10% vs 30%, p = 0.002). Comparing PI and PII studies, there was no difference about major complications (35% vs 35%, p = 0.1), reoperation (16% vs 17.5%, p = 0.5), abscess rate (15% vs 8.5%, p = 0.1) and mortality (14.5% vs 17.5%, p = 0.7). The length of stay was longer in PI study than in P II (14 days vs 9 days, p = 0.03). Drainage (p = 0.005; OR = 4.357; CI [1.559–12.173]) and peritonitis type (p = 0.032; OR = 3.264; CI [1.106–9.630]) were abscess risk factors.

Conclusion

This study therefore showed that drainage after surgery for LGTP may not be necessary and that, at least at the local level, surgeons seem to be inclined to discontinue it systematically. It may therefore be worthwhile to conduct a randomised control trial to establish recommendations on drainage after surgery for LGTP.