World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 758–765 | Cite as

Impact of Drain Insertion After Perforated Peptic Ulcer Repair in a Japanese Nationwide Database Analysis

  • K. Okumura
  • K. Hida
  • S. Kunisawa
  • T. Nishigori
  • H. Hosogi
  • Y. Sakai
  • Y. ImanakaEmail author
Original Scientific Report



Many perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) require surgical repair due to diffuse peritonitis. However, few studies have examined the clinical effects of postoperative drainage after PPU repair. This study aimed to investigate the drain insertion rates in patients who underwent PPU repair in Japan, and to clarify the impact of drain insertion on the postoperative clinical course.


A retrospective nationwide cohort study was performed using administrative claims data of patients who had undergone PPU repair between 2010 and 2016. These patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not they had received a postoperative abdominal drain. Using propensity score matching, we compared the incidences of postoperative interventions for abdominal complications between both groups.


A total of 4869 patients from 324 hospitals were analyzed. At the hospital level, drains were placed in all PPU repair patients in 229 (70.7%) hospitals. At the patient level, 4401 patients (90.4%) had drains inserted. The drain group was associated with a higher emergency admission rate, poorer preoperative shock status, longer anesthetic time, and a higher amount of intra-abdominal irrigation. In the propensity score-matched patients, the drain group had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative interventions than the no-drain group (1.9 vs. 5.6%; risk ratio = 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.73; P = 0.003).


Postoperative drainage was performed in the majority of patients who underwent PPU repair in Japan. Drainage following PPU repair may facilitate patient recovery by reducing the need for postoperative interventions.



QIP data operations were supported by a Health Sciences Research Grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Grant No. H27-iryo-ippan-001) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 16H02634). The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Authors’ contributions

KO contributed to the study conception and design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the results, drafting of the manuscript, and critical review for important intellectual content. KH andTN contributed to the study design, analysis, interpretation of the results, and critical review for important intellectual content. SK contributed to the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the results, and critical review for important intellectual content. HH and YS contributed to the study design, interpretation of the results, and critical review for important intellectual content. YI contributed to the study design, data acquisition, interpretation of the results, and critical review for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Lanas A, Garcia-Rodriguez LA, Polo-Tomas M et al (2009) Time trends and impact of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol 104:1633–1641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Svanes C (2000) Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment, and prognosis. World J Surg 24:277–283. doi: 10.1007/s002689910045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kocer B, Surmeli S, Solak C et al (2007) Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22:565–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lassen A, Hallas J, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB (2006) Complicated and uncomplicated peptic ulcers in a Danish county 1993–2002: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 101:945–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lay PL, Huang HH, Chang WK et al (2016) Outcome of nonsurgical intervention in patients with perforated peptic ulcers. Am J Emerg Med 34:1556–1560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soreide K, Thorsen K, Soreide JA (2014) Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 101:e51–e64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schein M (2008) To drain or not to drain? The role of drainage in the contaminated and infected abdomen: an international and personal perspective. World J Surg 32:312–321. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9277-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pai D, Sharma A, Kanungo R et al (1999) Role of abdominal drains in perforated duodenal ulcer patients: a prospective controlled study. Aust N Z J Surg 69:210–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kojika M, Sato N, Yaegashi Y et al (2009) Should a drain be inserted during surgery for peritonitis? J Abdom Emerg Med 29:827–834 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ansari MM, Akhtar A, Haleem S et al (2011) Is there a role of abdominal drainage in primarily repaired perforated peptic ulcers? J Exp Integr Med 2:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan S, Rai P, Misra G (2015) Is prophylactic drainage of peritoneal cavity after gut surgery necessary?: A non-randomized comparative study from a teaching hospital. J Clin Diagn Res 9:Pc01–Pc03PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayashida K, Imanaka Y, Sekimoto M et al (2007) Evaluation of acute myocardial infarction in-hospital mortality using a risk-adjustment model based on Japanese administrative data. J Int Med Res 35:590–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamada H, Sekimoto M, Imanaka Y (2012) Effects of the per diem prospective payment system with DRG-like grouping system (DPC/PDPS) on resource usage and healthcare quality in Japan. Health Policy 107:194–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishii M (2012) DRG/PPS and DPC/PDPS as Prospective Payment Systems. Japan Med Assoc J 55:279–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V et al (2004) Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Ann Surg 240:1074–1084 (discussion 1084–1075) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mouly C, Chati R, Scotte M et al (2013) Therapeutic management of perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer: literature review. J Visc Surg 150:333–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C et al (2011) Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion 84:102–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bae S, Shim KN, Kim N et al (2012) Incidence and short-term mortality from perforated peptic ulcer in Korea: a population-based study. J Epidemiol 22:508–516CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM et al (2015) Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet 386:1288–1298CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thorsen K, Soreide JA, Kvaloy JT et al (2013) Epidemiology of perforated peptic ulcer: age- and gender-adjusted analysis of incidence and mortality. World J Gastroenterol 19:347–354CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright GP, Davis AT, Koehler TJ et al (2014) Cost-efficiency and outcomes in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease: laparoscopic versus open approach. Surgery 156:1003–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Testini M, Portincasa P, Piccinni G et al (2003) Significant factors associated with fatal outcome in emergency open surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. World J Gastroenterol 9:2338–2340CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arveen S, Jagdish S, Kadambari D (2009) Perforated peptic ulcer in South India: an institutional perspective. World J Surg 33:1600–1604. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0056-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Imhof M, Epstein S, Ohmann C et al (2008) Duration of survival after peptic ulcer perforation. World J Surg 32:408–412. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9370-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Okumura
    • 1
  • K. Hida
    • 1
  • S. Kunisawa
    • 2
  • T. Nishigori
    • 1
  • H. Hosogi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Y. Sakai
    • 1
  • Y. Imanaka
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Healthcare Economics and Quality Management, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryKyoto City HospitalKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations