Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Die Einlage präventiver Drainagen in der Viszeralchirurgie wird nach wie vor kontrovers diskutiert.
Fragestellung
Erlaubt der aktuelle Stand klinischer Studien die Aussage, dass auf die routinemäßige Einlage präventiver Drainagen bei elektiven abdominalchirurgischen Eingriffen verzichtet werden kann?
Material und Methoden
Systematisch wurden in den Datenbanken Pubmed, MEDLINE und in der Cochrane Libary nach klinischen Studien zur Frage der präventiven Drainageeinlage bei elektiven abdominalchirurgischen Eingriffen gesucht. Für Cholezystektomien, kolorektale Resektionen, Magenchirurgie, Pankreas- und Leberresektionen wurde die verfügbare Evidenz ausgewertet. Insgesamt erfolgte die Auswertung von 6 Cochrane-Reviews mit 65 randomisiert kontrollierten Studien (RCTs) und 9 retrospektiven Analysen sowie einer neueren RCT und 3 retrospektiven Analysen, die nicht Teil einer Metaanalyse waren.
Diskussion
Bei elektiven abdominalchirurgischen Eingriffen wie der Cholezystektomie, kolorektalen Resektionen und der Gastrektomie kann auf die routinemäßige Einlage einer Drainage verzichtet werden. Auch für elektive Pankreas- und Leberresektionen gibt es zunehmende Evidenz, dass eine präventive Drainageeinlage nicht verpflichtend ist. Weitere prospektiv randomisierte Multicenterstudien wären wünschenswert.
Abstract
Background
Prophylactic placement of intraperitoneal drains in elective abdominal surgery is still subject to scrutiny.
Objective
Do currently available data enable the practice of routine placement of abdominal drainages to be abandoned?
Methods
The databases of MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical trials concerning the practice of routine drainage placement in elective abdominal surgery. The available evidence was summarized for cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery, gastrectomy and pancreatic surgery, as well as for liver resection. A total of 6 Cochrane reviews including 65 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 retrospective analyses, as well as 1 more recent RCT and 3 retrospective analyses that were not included in a meta-analysis were reviewed.
Conclusion
There is evidence that drains should not be routinely used in elective abdominal surgery, such as cholecystectomy, colorectal resection and gastrectomy. Even for some cases of pancreatic and liver resection, there is growing evidence that routine placement of drains is not mandatory. In conclusion, there is a need for more prospective randomized controlled trials.
Literatur
Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G et al. (2010) Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 252:207–214
Brooke-Smith M, Figueras J, Ullah S et al. (2015) Prospective evaluation of the International Study Group for Liver Surgery definition of bile leak after a liver resection and the role of routine operative drainage: an international multicentre study. HPB (Oxford) 17:46–51
Cheng Y, Xia J, Lai M et al. (2016) Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD010583
Conlon KC, Labow D, Leung D et al. (2001) Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 234:487–493 (discussion 493)
Dann GC, Squires MH, Postlewait LM et al. (2015) Value of peritoneal drain placement after total gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis from the US gastric cancer collaborative. Ann Surg Oncol 22(Suppl 3):888–897
Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Davidson BR (2013) Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD006004
Gurusamy KS, Samraj K (2007) Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated open cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD006003
Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Davidson BR (2007) Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated liver resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD006232
Inoue Y, Imai Y, Kawaguchi N et al. (2017) Management of abdominal drainage after hepatic resection. Dig Surg. doi:10.1159/000455238
JAMA (1898) The objections to intraperitoneal drainage. JAMA XXX(19):1117–1119
Jiang H, Liu N, Zhang M et al. (2016) A randomized trial on the efficacy of prophylactic active drainage in prevention of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Scand J Surg 105(4):215–222
Melloul E, Hübner M, Scott M et al. (2016) Guidelines for perioperative care for liver surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations. World J Surg 40:2425–2440
Robinson JO (1986) Surgical drainage: an historical perspective. Br J Surg 73:422–426
Uetsuji S, Kwon AH, Komada H et al. (1997) Clinical evaluation of closed suction drainage following hepatectomy. Surg Today 27:298–301
Van Buren G, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ et al. (2014) A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg 259:605–612
Wada S, Hatano E, Yoh T et al. (2016) Is routine abdominal drainage necessary after liver resection? Surg Today. doi:10.1007/s00595-016-1432-3
Wang Z, Chen J, Su K, Dong Z (2015) Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD008788
Witzigmann H, Diener MK, Kienkötter S et al. (2016) No need for routine drainage after pancreatic head resection: the dual-center, randomized, controlled PANDRA trial (ISRCTN04937707). Ann Surg 264:528–537
Zhang HY, Zhao CL, Xie J et al. (2016) To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:951–960
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
B. Globke, M. Schmelzle, M. Bahra, J. Pratschke und J. Neudecker geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Globke, B., Schmelzle, M., Bahra, M. et al. Drainagen in der Viszeralchirurgie: (un)verzichtbar?. Chirurg 88, 395–400 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0404-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0404-5