Is intraabdominal drainage necessary after laparotomy for typhoid intestinal perforation?

PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare the safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and nondrainage after emergency laparotomy for typhoid intestinal perforation (TIP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of children 15 years or younger who underwent surgery for TIP from 2002 to 2009 was performed. All children underwent resuscitation and laparotomy and were given antibiotics but were then divided into 2 groups: group I (n = 81), postoperative peritoneal drainage, and group II, (n = 66) no drainage.

RESULTS

There was no demographic difference between the groups (e.g., mean age 9.6 vs 9.0 years; P = .21). There was no significant difference in mean time for return of bowel function (3.8 vs 4.0 days; P = .6), rate of surgical site infection (63% vs 70%; P = .39), wound dehiscence (36% vs 27%; P = .27), anastomotic leak (2.5% vs 1.5%; P = .27), enterocutaneous fistula formation (10% vs 6.1%; P = .40), intraabdominal abscess formation (4% vs 9%; P = .18), or mean length of hospital stay (22 vs 19 days; P = .26).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study clearly show that routine peritoneal drain placement after laparotomy for TIP is unnecessary, and such drains are not effective in reducing the rate of postoperative complications.