Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

No drains versus drains after perforated peptic ulcer repair: A randomized controlled trail

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The study aimed to evaluate safety of omitting the intraabdominal drains after perforated peptic ulcer repairs.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial from January 2022 to January 2024 at the Emergency surgery department. Patients with perforated peptic ulcers were evaluated for eligibility. They were randomly assigned into two groups. In group A: two intraabdominal drains (pelvic and hepatorenal). in group B: no intraabdominal drains. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS), and the secondary outcomes included parameters of recovery and 30-day morbidities. The data were analyzed using SPSS 16 ®.

Results

Thirty five patients were in the no drain group, while 36 patients were in the drain group. Patients in the no drains group had significantly earlier bowel motion (21.6 vs 28.69 hours; p = 0.004), fluid diet (73.54 vs 86.78 hours; p 0.001), and solid intake (84.4 vs. 98 hours; p 0.001), less pain severity (p = 0.0001) and shorter hospital stay (4.74 vs 5.75 days; p 0.001). A significant less morbidity, including surgical site infection (p = 0.01), and respiratory complications (p 0.0001), were in the no drain group. There was no difference of fever duration nor wound dehiscence.

Conclusions

Omitting the intraabdominal drains is safe after peptic ulcer perforation repair. It can improve outcomes.

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06084741.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Further minor datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Søreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM, Bingener J, Møller MH, Ohene-Yeboah M, Søreide JA. Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet. 2015;386(10000):1288–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00276-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar R, Hastir A, Chopra L, Jindal S, Walia RPS, Goyal S. Role of drains in cases of peptic ulcer perforations: comparison between single drain versus no drain. Int Surg J [Internet]. 2020;7(2):404–7. Available from: https://www.ijsurgery.com/index.php/isj/article/view/5350. Accessed 23 Oct 2023.

  3. Allen PJ. Operative drains after pancreatic resection – the Titanic is sinking. HPB. 2011;13(9):595.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sagar PM, Couse N, Kerin M, May J, MacFie J. Randomized trial of drainage of colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1993;80(6):769–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800800640.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Irani JL, Hedrick TL, Miller TE, Lee L, Steinhagen E, Shogan BD, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2022;37(1):5–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu CL, Fan ST, Lo CM, Wong Y, Ng IO, Lam CM, et al. Abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases. Annal Surg. 2004;239(2):194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Masood A, Viqar S, Zia N, Ghani MU. Early oral feeding compared with traditional postoperative care in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for perforated duodenal ulcer. Cureus. 2021. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33564545/. Accessed 5 Oct 2023.

  8. Schein M. To drain or not to drain? The role of drainage in the contaminated and infected abdomen: an international and personal perspective. World J Surg. 2007;32(2):312–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9277-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Okumura K, Hida K, Kunisawa S, Nishigori T, Hosogi H, Sakai Y, et al. Impact of drain insertion after perforated peptic ulcer repair in a Japanese nationwide database analysis. World J Surg. 2017;42(3):758–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4211-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bertleff MJOE, Lange JF. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: a review of history and treatment. Dig Surg. 2010;27(3):161–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000264653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ansari M, Akhtar A, Haleem S, Husain M, Kumar A. Is there a role of abdominal drainage in primarily repaired perforated peptic ulcers? J Exp Integ Med. 2012;2(1):47. https://doi.org/10.5455/jeim.201111.or.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu X, Tian W, Kubilay NZ, Ren J, Li J. Is it necessary to place prophylactically an abdominal drain to prevent surgical site infection in abdominal operations? Syst Meta-Rev Surg Infect. 2016;17(6):730–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2016.082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V, Clavien PA. Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2004;240(6):1074–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000146149.17411.c5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Agrama HM, Blackwood JM, Brown CS, et al. Fuctional longevity of intraperitoneal drains: An experimental evaluation. Am J Surg. 1976;132:418–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A- Mohammed elshwadfy nageeb, B- Ahmed mohammed salah, C- Ahmed saqr, and D-amr aly ragab E wael tobar The study's inception and design were collaborative efforts by all authors.(A,B,C,D,E). A&B performed the preparation of material, C & D performed collection of data, and analysis. A and E drafted the initial version of the manuscript, and all authors gave feedback on previous versions of the manuscript. The final manuscript was revised and accepted by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Elshwadfy Nageeb.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

All authors undersign and certificate that they do not have any financial or personal relationships that might bias the content of this work.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nageeb, M.E., Tobar, W., Saqr, A. et al. No drains versus drains after perforated peptic ulcer repair: A randomized controlled trail. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02551-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02551-6

Keywords

Navigation