Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 1135–1140 | Cite as

Natural history of percutaneous drainage of postoperative collection following colorectal surgery: in which patients can follow-up imaging be dispensed with before drain removal?

  • B. Brac
  • C. Sabbagh
  • B. Robert
  • C. Chivot
  • T. Yzet
  • J. M. RegimbeauEmail author



Colorectal surgery is complicated by postoperative collections in up to 25% of cases depending on local conditions. The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors of success of percutaneous drainage of collections in order to avoid follow-up imaging.

Patients and methods

All consecutive patients between January 2009 and December 2016, who had undergone elective or emergency colorectal surgery (colorectal surgery and appendectomy) complicated by a postoperative collection treated by percutaneous drainage with follow-up imaging prior to drain removal, were included in this single-center and retrospective study. The primary objective was to assess predictive factors of success of the first attempt of percutaneous drainage of collections. Secondary objectives were to describe the natural history of percutaneous drainage of postoperative collections after colorectal surgery and the overall success rate of percutaneous drainage.


Fifty-three patients underwent percutaneous drainage of a postoperative collection during the study period and were included in this study. Complete resolution of the collection was observed on the first follow-up radiological examination in 36 patients (58%). In multivariate analysis, post-appendectomy collections (OR = 3.19 (1.14–9.27), p = 0.002) and reduction of the leukocyte count (OR = 3.22 (1.28–8.1), p = 0.013) were significantly associated with success of percutaneous drainage.


This is the first study to address that follow-up imaging prior to drain removal might not be necessary in patients undergoing drainage of post-appendectomy collections and/or with more than 30% reduction of the leukocyte count at the first follow-up examination.


Percutaneous drainage Radiological guidance Intra-abdominal collection Postoperative collection 


  1. 1.
    Kartheuser AH, Leonard DF, Penninckx F, Paterson HM, Brandt D (2013) Waist circumference and waist/hip ratio are better predictive risk factors for mortality and morbidity after colorectal surgery than body mass index and body surface area. Ann Surg 258:722–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baig MK, Zhao RH, Batista O, et al. (2002) Percutaneous postoperative intra-abdominal collection drainage after elective colorectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol 6:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cinat ME, Wilson SE, Din AM (2002) Determinants for successful percutaneous image-guided drainage of intra-abdominal collection. Arch Surg 137:845–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laganà D, Carrafiello G, Mangini M, et al. (2008) Image-guided percutaneous treatment of abdominal-pelvic collections: a 5-year experience. Radiol Med (Torino) 113:999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akinci D, Akhan O, Ozmen MN, et al. (2005) Percutaneous drainage of 300 intraperitoneal collections with long-term follow-up. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 28:744–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Politano AD, Hranjec T, Rosenberger LH, Sawyer RG, Tache Leon CA (2011) Differences in morbidity and mortality with percutaneous versus open surgical drainage of postoperative intra-abdominal infections: a review of 686 cases. Am Surg 77:862–867Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hemming A, Davis NL, Robins RE (1991) Surgical versus percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections. Am J Surg 161:593–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olak J, Christou NV, Stein LA, Casola G, Meakins JL (1986) Operative vs percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections. Comparison of morbidity and mortality. Arch Surg 121:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kassi F, Dohan A, Soyer P, et al. (2014) Predictive factors for percutaneous drainage of postoperative collection after abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 207:915–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okita Y, Mohri Y, Kobayashi M, et al. (2013) Factors influencing the outcome of image-guided percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collection after gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Today 43:1095–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benoist S, Panis Y, Pannegeon V, et al. (2002) Can failure of percutaneous drainage of postoperative abdominal collections be predicted? Am J Surg 184:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robert B, Yzet T, Regimbeau JM (2013) Radiologic drainage of post-operative collections and collections. J Visc Surg 150:S11–S18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golfieri R, Cappelli A (2007) Computed tomography-guided percutaneous abscess drainage in coloproctology: review of the literature. Tech Coloproctol 11:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Theisen J, Bartels H, Weiss W, et al. (2005) Current concepts of percutaneous collection drainage in postoperative retention. J Gastrointest Surg 9:280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rotman JA, Getrajdman GI, Maybody FM, Boas E (2016) Effect of abdominopelvic collection drain on drainage time and probability of occlusion. Am J Surg 70:27–28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Brac
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Sabbagh
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • B. Robert
    • 4
  • C. Chivot
    • 4
  • T. Yzet
    • 4
  • J. M. Regimbeau
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Digestive SurgeryAmiens University HospitalAmiens Cedex 01France
  2. 2.University of Picardie Jules VerneAmiensFrance
  3. 3.SSPC (Simplifications des Soins Patients Chirurgicaux Complexes) Research UnitUniversity of Picardie Jules VerneAmiensFrance
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyAmiens University HospitalAmiensFrance

Personalised recommendations