Health science reports · 2024
The efficacy and safety of using prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized control trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arnaout Ahmad Y, Kadoura Lama, Masri Ruqaya, Nerabani Yaman, Atli Abd Alazeez, Arnaout Khaled, Arnaout Ibrahim, Bsata Adel, Kayali Hasan, Mahli Nehad, Al-Haj Ahmad, Ayoub Kusay, Niazi Ammar, Ghazal Ahmad, Aleppo University Hospital Team
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of prophylactic drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been a routine practice for many years. However, the debate surrounding using it stems from conflicting evidence regarding its potential benefits and risks.
METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from February 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, at Aleppo University Hospital were enrolled according to our previously registered protocol (NCT05267860).
RESULTS: This study included 232 patients (117 in the drainage group [DG], and 115 in the non-drainage group [NDG]). There was no statistical difference in the patients' main characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory findings. The duration of the surgical operation in NDG (mean = 44.92, SD = 1.85) was shorter than in DG (mean 55.14, SD = 2.14), with (p = 0.039) statistically significant, which indicates that the use of the drainage led to a prolongation of the surgical operation. The total number of complicated cases reached 22 (9.48%) cases (DG = 9 vs. NDG = 13, p = 0.348) as follows: bleeding (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), bile leak with no established bile duct injury (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), wound infection (n = 12) (DG = 4 vs. NDG = 8; p = 0.443), urinary tract infection (n = 3) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 3; p = 0.079), prolonged shoulder pain (n = 2) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 2; p = 0.152), and acute pancreatitis (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.144).
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study, the use of prophylactic drainage was safe, but ineffective, as it did not improve the outcomes statistically significantly or worsen them, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting the need for personalized patient care in this setting.
METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from February 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, at Aleppo University Hospital were enrolled according to our previously registered protocol (NCT05267860).
RESULTS: This study included 232 patients (117 in the drainage group [DG], and 115 in the non-drainage group [NDG]). There was no statistical difference in the patients' main characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory findings. The duration of the surgical operation in NDG (mean = 44.92, SD = 1.85) was shorter than in DG (mean 55.14, SD = 2.14), with (p = 0.039) statistically significant, which indicates that the use of the drainage led to a prolongation of the surgical operation. The total number of complicated cases reached 22 (9.48%) cases (DG = 9 vs. NDG = 13, p = 0.348) as follows: bleeding (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), bile leak with no established bile duct injury (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), wound infection (n = 12) (DG = 4 vs. NDG = 8; p = 0.443), urinary tract infection (n = 3) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 3; p = 0.079), prolonged shoulder pain (n = 2) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 2; p = 0.152), and acute pancreatitis (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.144).
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study, the use of prophylactic drainage was safe, but ineffective, as it did not improve the outcomes statistically significantly or worsen them, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting the need for personalized patient care in this setting.