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.
Dageforde LA, Lillemoe KD. (2020). Management of Acute Cholangitis. In: Cameron JL, Cameron AM (Eds), Current Surgical Therapy, 13th ed. Elsevier: Philadelphia.
“Recent literature advocates for primary closure of the common bile duct after elective CBDE because of complications from T-tube placement. But in patients with cholangitis, placement of a T-tube is necessary for biliary decompression and allows easy access for future cholangiogram if the obstruction does not resolve. T-tube drainage has been associated with bile leak and requires externalization of the tube for several days until postoperative cholangiography demonstrates resolution of obstruction. Primary closure can lead to stricture and bile leak and result in no direct access to the biliary tree for future investigations.”
Fig. 2. Insertion of a T-tube in the common bile duct with subsequent closure using absorbable monofilament suture (4-0 or 5-0). The T-tube is prepared in one of the ways shown. From: Zollinger RM, Jr, Zollinger RM. Atlas of Surgical Operations. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1993.
Lam E, Chan T, Wiseman SM. Breast abscess: evidence based management recommendations. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2014 Jul;12(7):753-62.
Full-text for Emory users.
- All breast abscesses should be treated with abscess drainage and concurrent empiric antibiotic therapy.
- Needle aspiration either with or without ultrasound guidance should be employed as first-line treatment of breast abscesses. However, multiple aspiration sessions may be required.
- Ultrasound-guided percutaneous catheter placement may be considered as an alternative approach for drainage of larger (>3 cm) abscesses.
- Surgical incision and drainage is required if needle aspiration or catheter drainage is unsuccessful and there is progression of infection.
- Surgical incision and drainage should be considered for first-line therapy of large (>5 cm), multiloculated or long-standing breast abscesses.
- Cultures should be obtained at the time of abscess drainage and antibiotic management tailored to the infecting organism’s susceptibility profile.
- Empiric antibiotics targeting methicillin-resistant S. aureus may be required for patients who are known to be colonized or considered to be at high risk.
- For breastfeeding women, the infant should not nurse from the breast with the abscess but may continue nursing from the contralateral, uninfected breast.
- Future research should prospectively evaluate the utilization of aspiration or percutaneous catheter drainage techniques in terms of frequency of progression of infection requiring surgical management in order to limit selection biases. The optimal frequency of aspirations, time interval between aspirations and duration of catheter placement also requires further study.
Mazzeffi M, et al. Contemporary Single-Center Experience With Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients at High Risk for Ischemic Spinal Cord Injury. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018 Apr;32(2): 883-889.
Full-text for Emory users.
Fig 2. Flowchart showing patient outcomes and complications in the cohort. SCI, spinal cord injury; SCPP, spinal cord perfusion pressure; TEVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair.
“In summary, in a contemporary cohort of 102 patients undergoing TEVAR with a high risk for ischemic SCI, prophylactic CSF drainage was associated with a 2% paraplegia rate and 3.9% rate of drain-related complications. No patient with a drain-related complication had permanent injury, and only 1 patient required surgical intervention for spinal cord compression from epidural hematoma. Three patients with new paraplegia after surgery improved with targeted MAP increases and CSF drainage aimed to increase SCPP by 25%, whereas 1 patient’s symptoms never improved. These data further support the safety of prophylactic lumbar CSF drainage in patients undergoing TEVAR with a high risk for ischemic SCI.”
One discussion this week included the question of step-up approach versus open necrosectomy for pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND: The 2010 randomized PANTER trial in (infected) necrotizing pancreatitis found a minimally invasive step-up approach to be superior to primary open necrosectomy for the primary combined endpoint of mortality and major complications, but long-term results are unknown.
NEW FINDINGS: With extended follow-up, in the step-up group, patients had fewer incisional hernias, less exocrine insufficiency and a trend towards less endocrine insufficiency. No differences between groups were seen for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic endoscopic or surgical interventions, quality of life or costs.
IMPACT: Considering both short and long-term results, the step-up approach is superior to open necrosectomy for the treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.
One discussion this week included early vs late drain removal in pancreatectomy.
References: Beane JD, et al. Variation of drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: early versus delayed removal. Annals of Surgery. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002570
Deminski J, et al. Early removal of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients without postoperative fistula at POD3: results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Visceral Surgery. 2019 Jan 31. pii: S1878-7886(18)30084-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.06.006
Summary: Early drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy, when guided by postoperative day (POD) 1 drain fluid amylase (DFA-1), is associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF).