Routine Use Of Drains Research Articles

Is the Insertion of Drains After Uncomplicated Thyroid Surgery Always Necessary?

We conducted a prospective, randomized study to evaluate the necessity of drainage after uncomplicated thyroid surgery. The subjects were 135 patients who underwent thyroid surgery between September 2002 and February 2004. The patients were randomized into two groups according to whether drains were inserted at the time of surgery. Group 1 consisted of 68 patients with drains and group 2 consisted of 67 patients without drains. The indications for surgery, procedures performed, local complications (such as infection, seroma, and bleeding or hematoma), necessity for reoperation, and hospital stay were recorded. There were 110 (81.5%) women and 25 (18.5%) men, with a median age of 46.9 +/- 12.5 years. The mean hospital stay was 2.6 +/- 1.0 days in group 1 and 1.3 +/- 0.7 days in group 2 (P = 0.001). Local complications developed in five (7.3%) patients from group 1, as wound infections in two (2.9%), seroma in one (1.5%), and hemorrhage in two (2.9%); and in two (3%) patients from group 2, as seroma in one (1.5%) and hematoma in one (1.5%). Both of the group 1 patients with postoperative hemorrhage required reoperation within 8 h after initial surgery. The hematoma in the group 2 patient was treated successfully with needle aspiration. These findings suggest that the routine use of drains may be abandoned in uncomplicated thyroid surgery, since serious postoperative bleeding rarely occurs and hematomas can be treated by needle aspiration if drains have not been placed. Furthermore, the use of drains prolongs hospital stay and increases the risk of infection.

Is intra-abdominal drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Closed suction drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy are theoretically used to drain potential collections and anastomotic leaks. It is unknown whether such drains are effective, harmful, or affect the outcome after this operation. Eighty-nine consecutive patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for presumed periampullary malignancy and were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-eight had no intra-abdominal drains and 51 had drains placed at the conclusion of the operation. We analyzed patient, nutritional, laboratory, and operating room factors with end points being complications and length of hospital stay. Intra-abdominal complications were defined as intra-abdominal abscess and pancreatic or biliary fistula. Postoperative interventions were defined as CT-guided drainage and reoperation. Analysis was by Student's t test and chi-square test. Two of eight surgeons contributed 92% of the patients without drains. The groups were equivalent with respect to demographic, nutritional, and operative factors. Time under anesthesia was significantly shorter in the group without drains ( P = 0.0001). There was no statistical difference in the rate of fistula, abscess, CT drainage, or length of hospital stay. Intra-abdominal drainage did not significantly alter the risk of fistula, abscess, or reoperation or the necessity for CT-guided intervention after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Routine use of drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy may not be necessary and should be subjected to a randomized trial.

Hepatectomy Without Abdominal Drainage

The increasingly simple postoperative course of major surgery has challenged the routine use of drainage after most abdominal surgical procedures. Therefore a prospective study was designed to determine if abdominal drainage could be safely avoided after liver resection and was evaluated in 61 consecutive patients. There was one postoperative death (1.7%) from variceal bleeding. Four other patients (6.7%) developed an abdominal complication: two right subphrenic hematomas requiring reoperation in one case and two incisional ascitic leaks requiring incisional repair in one patient. There was neither a subphrenic abscess nor bile peritonitis. Postoperative hospitalization was 11.5 +/- 3 days in the entire group and 8.5 +/- 1 days in patients without complications. These results suggest that liver resection can be performed safely without abdominal drainage and that the routine use of drains is unnecessary.

Thyroid surgery without drain

Use of surgical drains after thyroid surgery is standard surgical practice to prevent lifethreatening complications, arising from post-operative haematoma. There is increasing evidence to suggest that this is an outdated practice. This study determines whether thyroid surgery can be safely performed without the routine use of drains. This cross sectional study was done for two years and one hundred thyroidectomies were performed. No drains were inserted in any patient. Complications of thyroid surgery in this series were seroma formation (5%) cases and minor haematoma was only 1%. Re-exploration for bleeding was not encountered in any cases in this series. There is no evidence to suggest the routine use of surgical drains following uncomplicated thyroid surgery. Key words: Thyroid Surgery; Drain DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjo.v17i2.8852 BJO 2011; 17(2): 121-124