Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Postoperative irrigation-suction drainage after pelvic colonic surgery

A prospective randomized trial

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

A 2-year randomized prospective clinical trial was undertaken to determine whether postoperative irrigation of the pelvis would result in a decreased incidence of local septic complications. Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing low pelvic procedures with rectal resection and entry of the presacral space by a single surgeon, were randomized. In the irrigation group, two of four presacral sump drains were placed to low intermittent suction and the remaining sumps infused continuously with saline until the effluent was clear. In the drainage alone group, all four presacral sump drains were placed to suction. Drains were removed when drainage was less than 50 ml/ 24 hours. Perioperative antibiotics and bowel preparation were identical. Postoperative complications included pelvic abscess (n=7), anastomotic leak/cuff sinus (n= 11), abdominal wound infection (n=19), and perineal wound infection (n=5). Postoperative irrigation of the pelvis did not result in a reduction in the overall rate of local pelvic septic complications. Positive intraoperative presacral cultures, the presence of anaerobes in the presacral space, and duration of pelvic drainage had no effect on the development of pelvic sepsis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collins CD, Talbott CH. Pelvic drainage after anterior resection of the rectum. Arch Surg 1969;99:391–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goligher JC. Further reflections on the preservation of the anal sphincters in the radical treatment of rectal cancer. Proc R Soc Med 1962;55:341–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hilsabeck JR. The presacral space as a collector of fluid accumulations following rectal anastomosis: tolerance of rectal anastomosis to closed suction pelvic drainage. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:680–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sehapayak S, McNatt M, Carter HG, Bailey W, Baldwin A Jr. Continuous sump-suction drainage of the pelvis after low anterior resection: a reappraisal. Dis Colon Rectum 1973;16:485–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS user's guide, statistics, version 5 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schrock TR, Deveney CW, Dunphy JE. Factors contributing to leakage of colonic anastomoses. Ann Surg 1973;177:513–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goligher JC, Graham NG, DeDombal FT. Anastomotic dehiscence after anterior resection of the rectum and sigmoid. Br J Surg 1970;57:109–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hawley PR. Causes and prevention of colonic anastomotic breakdown. Dis Colon Rectum 1973;16:272–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fazio VW. The factors that make low colorectal anastomoses safe (symp): sump suction and irrigation of the presacral space. Dis Colon Rectum 1978;21:401–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hulten L. The continent ileostomy (Kock's pouch) versus the restorative proctocolectomy (pelvic pouch). World J Surg 1985;9:952–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Metcalf AM, Dozois RR, Kelly KA, Beart RW Jr, Wolff BG. Ileal “J” pouch-anal anastomosis: clinical outcome. Ann Surg 1985;202:735–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gingold BS, Jagelman DG. The value of pelvic suction-irrigation in reducing morbidity of low anterior resection of the rectum: a ten-year experience. Surgery 1982;91:384–98.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Broader JH, Masselink BA, Oates GD, Alexander-Williams J. Management of the pelvic space after proctectomy. Br J Surg 1974;61:94–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Irvin TT, Goligher JC. A controlled clinical trial of three methods of perineal wound management following excision of the rectum. Br J Surg 1975; 62:287–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Terranova O, Sandei F, Rebuffat C, Maruotti R, Pezzuoli G. Management of the perineal wound after rectal excision for neoplastic disease: a controlled clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 1979;22:228–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwab PM, Kelly KA. Primary closure of the perineal wound after proctectomy: a new technique. Mayo Clin Proc 1974;49:176–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Waits JO, Dozois RR, Kelly KA. Primary closure and continuous irrigation of the perineal wound after proctectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 1982;57:185–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aubrey DA, Morgan WP, Jenkins N, Harvey J. Treatment of the perineal wound after proctectomy by intermittent irrigation. Arch Surg 1984;119:1141–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Duthie HL. Current concepts: drainage of the abdomen. N Engl J Med 1972;287:1081–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hau T, Ahrenholz DH, Simmons RL. Secondary bacterial peritonitis: the biologic basis of treatment. Curr Probl Surg 1979;16:1–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Galandiuk, S., Fazio, V.W. Postoperative irrigation-suction drainage after pelvic colonic surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 34, 223–228 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02090161

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02090161

Key words

Navigation