Skip to main content
Log in

Passive versus active drainage following neck dissection: a non-randomised prospective study

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drainage is used following neck dissection to prevent the collection of fluid and aid healing. Active drains are thought to be more effective due to their ability to assist adherence of skin flaps and the minimisation of bacterial migration. There is controversy regarding the type of drain (active or passive) which should be used due to concerns about the potential for compromise of free flap pedicles with active drains. A prospective non-randomised study was undertaken to determine if there were any differences in neck healing following neck dissection between active and passive drains. A consecutive series of patients (the majority of whom had free flap reconstruction) were included over an 8 month period and were examined for delayed healing of the neck wound, flap loss, infection, haematoma and fistula. A total of 60 patients underwent 72 neck dissections during the study period (passive: 13, active: 47). The delayed healing rate in patients with passive drains was 54% compared with 6% for active drains (P < 0.001). This difference remained significant irrespective of surgeon grade, nodal status and whether or not a free flap was performed. There was no patient in whom the drain was thought to contribute to free flap loss. This non-randomised study has shown a significant difference in neck healing depending on the type of drain used following neck dissection. Despite the numerical differences between the groups the patients were relatively well matched for the parameters described. This difference in neck healing, combined with the lack of evidence for a contribution to flap loss, suggests active drains should be used following neck dissection in both free flap and non-free flap cases.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Urquhart AC, Berg RL (2002) Neck dissections: predicting postoperative drainage. Laryngoscope 112(7 Pt 1):1294–1298. doi:10.1097/00005537-200207000-00028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dougherty SH, Simmons RL (1992) The biology and practice of surgical drains. Part 1. Curr Probl Surg 29(8):559–623. doi:10.1016/0011-3840(92)90022-U

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Byers RM, Ballantyne AJ, Goepfert H, Guillamondegui OM, Larson DL, Medina J (1982) Clinical effects of closed suction drainage on wound healing in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol 108(11):723–726

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi BH, Yoo JH, Lee WJ (1999) A study of the effect of suction drainage on microvascular anastomosis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28(1):67–69. doi:10.1016/S0901-5027(99)80683-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lauer G, Choi BH, Dibah K, Schmelzeisen R (2001) A clinical audit on the effect of suction drainage on microvascular anastomosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 29(5):298–301. doi:10.1054/jcms.2001.0232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Riaz M, Khan K, Leonard AG (1996) Complications associated with suction drains after microvascular anastomeses. Microsurgery 17(1):51–52. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2752(1996)17:1<51::AID-MICR10>3.0.CO;2-S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schnetler JF (1994) Vacuum requirement in closed surgical drainage of the head and neck. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32(2):118–122. doi:10.1016/0266-4356(94)90143-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sidebottom AJ, Devine JC, Brown JS (2000) The effect of suction drainage on microvascular anastomosis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 29(1):72–73. doi:10.1016/S0901-5027(00)80130-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Williams J, Toews D, Prince M (2003) Survey of the use of suction drains in head and neck surgery and analysis of their biomechanical properties. J Otolaryngol 32(1):16–22. doi:10.2310/7070.2003.35365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dougherty SH, Simmons RL (1992) The biology and practice of surgical drains. Part II. Curr Probl Surg 29(9):633–730. doi:10.1016/0011-3840(92)90028-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Druce Batstone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Batstone, M.D., Lowe, D., Shaw, R.J. et al. Passive versus active drainage following neck dissection: a non-randomised prospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266, 121–124 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0723-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0723-8

Keywords

Navigation