Abstract
Thirty patients undergoing anterior resection of the rectum were randomized for postoperative drainage with either corrugated (N=14) or corrugated plus Shirley sump drain (N=16). Drainage volume per 24 hours was measured, and volume of residual pelvic fluid collection estimated by CT scan on the seventh postoperative day. A mean of 591.9 ±415.2 ml of fluid drained during the first seven postoperative days. There was a significant (P<0.01) increase in 24 hour drainage volume between the fourth and sixth postoperative days. There was no significant difference in drainage volumes between the two drainage methods. Residual pelvic fluid collection (median volume, 16 ml) was detected in 80 percent of patients at one week after operation. While this was larger (24 ml median) for the corrugated only group compared with the corrugated plus sump drain group (11.5 ml median), the difference was not significant. Fluid loss during the first postoperative week (616.6±424.2 ml) was significantly (P<0.05) less when the anastomosis was situated higher than 12 cm (294±192 ml) compared with 6 to 12 cm from the anal margin (496±210 ml), or after coloanal anastomosis (1077±432 ml). Residual pelvic fluid collection was larger after coloanal anastomosis (median, 33 ml; range, 1.5 to 90 ml) compared with 6 to 12 cm (median, 11 ml; range, 0–124 ml) or higher than 12 cm (median 9 ml; range, 0 to 16 ml) from the anal margin, but the difference was not significant. Drainage after anterior resection is important because large volumes of serosanguineous fluid collect, especially after resection of low tumors. Neither of the drainage methods tested in this study prevented persisting pelvic fluid collection at the seventh postoperative day.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hau T, Haaga JR, Aeder MI. Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of abdominal disease. Curr Probl Surg 1984;21:81–2.
Hawley PR, Hunt TK, Dunphy JE. The aetiology of colonic anastomotic leaks. J R Soc Med (suppl) 1970;68:28–30.
Gallagher P, Cade D, Whale R, Schofield PF. Does infection cause anastomotic dehiscence?? J R Coll Surg Edinb 1982;27:90–2.
Dunn DL, Simmons RL. The meaning of research in experimental peritonitis. Surgery 1983;93:471–4.
Foster ME. Healing of colonic anastomoses. Hosp Update 1985;11:933–40.
Husand JE, Fry IK. Computed tomography of the body. London: Macmillan, 1981.
Sagel SS, Siegel MJ, Stanley RJ, Jost RG. Detection of retroperitoneal haemorrhage by computed tomography. AJR 1977;129:403–7.
Ostle B. Statistics in research. Iowa City: Iowa State University Press, 1963:129–33.
Lennox MS. Prophylactic drainage of colonic anastomoses. Br J Surg 1984;71:10–11.
Smith SR, Conolly JC, Crane PW, Gilmore OJ. The effect of surgical drainage materials on colonic healing. Br J Surg 1982;69:153–5.
Goligher JC, Lee PW, Simpkins KC, Lintott DJ. A controlled comparison of one and two layer techniques of suture for high and low colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1977;64:609–14.
Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L. Large-bowel obstruction caused by cancer: a prospective study. Br Med J 1979;2:515–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Allen-Mersh, T.G., Sprague, D.B., Mann, C.V. et al. Pelvic drainage after anterior resection of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 32, 223–226 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02554533
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02554533