Minerva surgery · 2023
The use of intra-abdominal prophylactic drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does it change in relation to surgical expertise? A multicenter case-control retrospective study on postoperative outcomes.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Brucchi Francesco, Mehmeti Megi, Lauricella Sara, Faillace Giuseppe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is still controversial. The aim of this expertise-based study is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic AD in terms of postoperative complications and analyze the factors linked to AD placement.
METHODS: This case-control retrospective study included patients with cholelithiasis who underwent LC with AD (AD group) and LC without drainage (no-AD group) in two Italian centers. Allocation to groups was non-randomized and based on surgeons' decisions. Patient's characteristics, operative results, postoperative outcomes, surgeon's expertise related data were compared between the two groups with univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were comparable for age, sex ratio, and morbidity. Length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) in the no-AD group was shorter than the AD group. Patients in the AD group had a higher rate of wound infection. No difference in postoperative pain measured 7 days after the surgery was found. Our results show an association between the first operator's expertise and age and the decision of placing the AD. The operative time seems to be the principal factor impacting the decision whether to place or not the AD.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible not to insert routine AD after elective LC for cholelithiasis. The use of AD seems to cause more cases of postoperative wound infections, prolongs the LOS and the operative time. The drain placement choice seems to change in relation to the surgeon's expertise.
METHODS: This case-control retrospective study included patients with cholelithiasis who underwent LC with AD (AD group) and LC without drainage (no-AD group) in two Italian centers. Allocation to groups was non-randomized and based on surgeons' decisions. Patient's characteristics, operative results, postoperative outcomes, surgeon's expertise related data were compared between the two groups with univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were comparable for age, sex ratio, and morbidity. Length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) in the no-AD group was shorter than the AD group. Patients in the AD group had a higher rate of wound infection. No difference in postoperative pain measured 7 days after the surgery was found. Our results show an association between the first operator's expertise and age and the decision of placing the AD. The operative time seems to be the principal factor impacting the decision whether to place or not the AD.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible not to insert routine AD after elective LC for cholelithiasis. The use of AD seems to cause more cases of postoperative wound infections, prolongs the LOS and the operative time. The drain placement choice seems to change in relation to the surgeon's expertise.