Van Buren G 2nd, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014 Apr;259(4):605-12.
Full-text for Emory users.
Results: There were no differences between drain and no-drain cohorts in demographics, comorbidities, pathology, pancreatic duct size, pancreas texture, baseline quality of life, or operative technique. PD without intraperitoneal drainage was associated with an increase in the number of complications per patient [1 (0-2) vs 2 (1-4), P = 0.029]; an increase in the number of patients who had at least 1 ≥grade 2 complication [35 (52%) vs 47 (68%), P = 0.047]; and a higher average complication severity [2 (0-2) vs 2 (1-3), P = 0.027]. PD without intraperitoneal drainage was associated with a higher incidence of gastroparesis, intra-abdominal fluid collection, intra-abdominal abscess (10% vs 25%, P = 0.027), severe (≥grade 2) diarrhea, need for a postoperative percutaneous drain, and a prolonged length of stay. The Data Safety Monitoring Board stopped the study early because of an increase in mortality from 3% to 12% in the patients undergoing PD without intraperitoneal drainage.
Conclusions: This study provides level 1 data, suggesting that elimination of intraperitoneal drainage in all cases of PD increases the frequency and severity of complications.
See also: Van Buren G 2nd, Fisher WE. Pancreaticoduodenectomy Without Drains: Interpretation of the Evidence. Ann Surg. 2016 Feb;263(2):e20-1.
Mehta VV, Fisher SB, Maithel SK, Sarmiento JM, Staley CA, Kooby DA. Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Apr;216(4):635-42; discussion 642-4.
Full-text for Emory users.
Results: There were 709 PDs performed, and 251 (35%) patients had primary drains placed. Age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities were similar among groups; however, drained patients had slightly larger pancreatic ducts (mean diameter 3.8 mm vs 2.2 mm; p < 0.01). The overall secondary drainage rate was 7.1%. Primary drain placement did not affect the need for secondary drainage (with primary drain, 8.4% vs without primary drain 6.3%, p = 0.36), reoperation (5.6% vs 5.7%, p = 1.00), readmission (17.5% vs 16.8%, p = 0.89), or 30-day mortality (2.0% vs 2.5%, p = 0.80). When compared with the no drain group, patients with primary drains experienced higher rates of overall morbidity (68.1% vs 54.1%, p < 0.01) and significant POPF (16.3% vs 7.6%; p < 0.01), as well as longer hospital stays (13.8 days vs 11.3 days; p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, primary drain placement remained an independent risk factor for pancreatic fistula formation (hazard ratio 3.3, p < 0.01), but did not have an impact on secondary drainage rates (p = 0.85).
Conclusions: Placement of closed suction drains during pancreaticoduodenectomy does not appear to decrease the rate of secondary drainage procedures or reoperation, and may be associated with increased pancreatic fistula formation and overall morbidity. These data support foregoing routine primary operative drainage at time of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
More PubMed results on drainage vs no drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.