Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection. Abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases. Abdominal drainage after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: a randomized controlled study. [Uses and risks of drainage following elective colon resection. A prospective, randomized and controlled clinical study]. [Routine drainage following uncomplicated, elective cholecystectomy? A prospective, randomized study]. Randomized clinical trial of laxatives and oral nutritional supplements within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol following liver resection. A controlled trial of drainage after cholecystectomy. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of abdominal drainage after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method. Cholecystectomy is safer without drainage: the results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial.
A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine if intra-abdominal drainage catheters are necessary after elective liver resection.
                Between April 1992 and April 1994, 120 patients subjected to liver resection, stratified by extent of resection and by surgeon, were randomized to receive or not receive operative closed-suction drainage. Operative blood loss was not an exclusion criteria, and no patient who consented to the study was excluded.
                Eighty-seven patients (73%) had resection of one hepatic lobe or more (27 lobectomies, 54 trisegmentectomies, and 6 bilobar atypical resections) and 33 had less than a lobectomy (8 wedge resections or enucleations, 9 segmentectomies, and 16 bisegmentectomies). Eighty-four patients (70%) had metastatic cancer and 36 patients (30%) had primary liver pathology. There were no differences in outcome, including length of hospital stay (no drain, 13.4 +/- 0.9 days; drain, 13.1 +/- 0.8 days; P = not significant [NS]), mortality (no drain, 3.3%; drain, 3.3%), complication rate (no drain, 43%; drain, 48%; P = NS), or requirement for subsequent percutaneous drainage (no drain, 18%; drain, 8%; P = NS). All infected collections (n = 3) occurred in operatively drained patients. Two other complications were directly related to the operatively placed drains. One patient developed a subcutaneous abscess at the drain site, and a second developed a subcutaneous drain tract tumor recurrence as the only current site of recurrence.
                In the first 50 consecutive resections performed since the conclusion of this trial, only 4 patients (8%) have required subsequent percutaneous drainage. We conclude that abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection. The aim of this study was to determine whether abdominal drainage is beneficial after elective hepatic resection in patients with underlying chronic liver diseases.
                Traditionally, in patients with chronic liver diseases, an abdominal drainage catheter is routinely inserted after hepatic resection to drain ascitic fluid and to detect postoperative hemorrhage and bile leakage. However, the benefits of this surgical practice have not been evaluated prospectively.
                Between January 1999 and March 2002, 104 patients who had underlying chronic liver diseases were prospectively randomized to have either closed suction abdominal drainage (drainage group, n = 52) or no drainage (nondrainage group, n = 52) after elective hepatic resection. The operative outcomes of the 2 groups of patients were compared.
                Fifty-seven (55%) patients had major hepatic resection with resection of 3 Coiunaud's segments or more. Sixty-nine (66%) patients had liver cirrhosis and 35 (34%) had chronic hepatitis. Demographic, surgical, and pathologic details were similar between both groups. The primary indication for hepatic resection was hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 100, 96%). There was no difference in hospital mortality between the 2 groups of patients (drainage group, 6% vs. nondrainage group, 2%; P = 0.618). However, there was a significantly higher overall operative morbidity in the drainage group (73% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). This was related to a significantly higher incidence of wound complications in the drainage group compared with the nondrainage group (62% vs. 21%, P < 0.001). In addition, a trend toward a higher incidence of septic complications in the drainage group was observed (33% vs. 17%, P = 0.07). The mean (+/- standard error of mean) postoperative hospital stay of the drainage group was 19.0 +/- 2.2 days, which was significantly longer than that of the nondrainage group (12.5 +/- 1.1 days, P = 0.005). With a median follow-up of 15 months, none of the 51 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the drainage group developed metastasis at the drain sites. On multivariate analysis, abdominal drainage, underlying liver cirrhosis, major hepatic resection, and intraoperative blood loss of >1.5L were independent and significant factors associated with postoperative morbidity.
                Routine abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases. The use of drainage after liver resection remains controversial. Data of the usefulness of drains in cirrhotic patients undergoing surgical resection are scarce. The objective of our study is to assess the usefulness of intra-abdominal drainage after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients.
                We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the benefits of abdominal drainage after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. The main end point was to compare postoperative complications and hospital stay in both groups.
                Abdominal drainage decreased ascites leakage and significantly reduced hospital stay in comparison to the non-drainage group. In addition, local complications were less frequent in the drainage group. Postoperative ascites leakage significantly complicated patients with clinically relevant portal hypertension.
                Intra-abdominal closed drainage is advisable in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, mainly if presenting preoperative portal hypertension. The results of a controlled randomized and prospective clinical study including 113 patients from March 1987 until August 1988 showed that prophylactic drainage in elective resection for cancer of the colon was not necessary. 60 patients received a drain, 53 patients were not drained. The drain turned out to be ineffective even concerning its expected function of draining intraabdominal fluid: its diagnostic and therapeutic value failed in clinical practice. The rate of surgical complications--i.e. anastomotic leakage, impaired wound healing and relaparotomy--was significantly higher in the drained group. In elective colon resection the use of a drain as a routine procedure cannot be recommended. A prospective randomized and controlled study of prophylactic drainage after simple, elective cholecystectomy was carried out. From March 1988 to June 1991 80 patients received an Easy-Flow drain and 80 did not. Operation and perioperative management were standardized. The endpoint of the study was postoperative morbidity, especially postoperative pyrexia and subhepatic fluid collection. The latter was identified by ultrasonography performed daily on postoperative day 1-4. No patient died. The morbidity including postoperative pyrexia revealed no difference between drained and undrained patients. In 19 of the patients with (23.8%) and in 25 of the patients without drainage (31.3%) a subhepatic fluid collection could be demonstrated by ultrasonography. This difference was not statistically significant either. We conclude that prophylactic drainage after elective, simple cholecystectomy is of no use for the patient. As subhepatic fluid collections can be seen in drained as well as in undrained patients it has to be accepted that drainage does not guarantee the removal of subhepatic fluid. Therefore its indicatory function (bleeding) and the ability to prevent the patient having biliary peritonitis or local abscess has to be put in doubt. Routine laxatives may expedite gastrointestinal recovery and early tolerance of food within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. Combined with carbohydrate loading and oral nutritional supplements (ONS), it may further enhance recovery of gastrointestinal function and promote earlier overall recovery.
                Seventy-four patients undergoing liver resection were randomized in a two-by-two factorial design to receive either postoperative magnesium hydroxide as a laxative, preoperative carbohydrate loading and postoperative ONS, their combination or a control group. Patients were managed within an ERAS programme of care. The primary outcome measure was time to first passage of stool. Secondary outcome measures were gastric emptying, postoperative oral calorie intake, time to functional recovery and length of hospital stay.
                Sixty-eight patients completed the trial. The laxative group had a significantly reduced time to passage of stool: median (interquartile range) 4 (3-5) versus 5 (4-6) days (P = 0.034). The ONS group showed a trend towards a shorter time to passage of stool (P = 0.076) but there was no evidence of interaction in patients randomized to the combination regimen. Median length of hospital stay was 6 (4-7) days. There were no differences in secondary outcomes between groups.
                Within an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing liver resection, routine postoperative laxatives result in an earlier first passage of stool but the overall rate of recovery is unaltered.
                Copyright (c) 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. A prospective controlled trial of drainage after cholecystectomy has been carried out. In a consecutive series of 143 patients undergoing cholecystectomy, 50 patients were randomly allocated to a drainage group and a further 50 patients to a non-drainage group. The remaining 43 patients were drained electively because the common bile duct was explored or because of infection or incomplete haemostasis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of wound infection or other complications between the drainage and the non-drainage groups. The duration of postoperative pyrexia, the number of analgesic injections and the length of postoperative hospital stay were the same in both the randomized groups. One patient in the randomized drainage group had a reactionary haemorrhage from the drain site requiring transfusion. There was no mortality but one patient in the elective drainage group had to be re-explored for a subhepatic abscess. Three patients in this group drained bile from the drain for 3-9 days but all had a T tube in place. This trial fails to demonstrate any advantage or disadvantage in draining the gallbladder bed after cholecystectomy. Abdominal drainage is a standard procedure after hepatectomy, but this practice has been challenged recently.
                Between September 2004 and March 2005, 120 consecutive patients who had undergone hepatic resection by the same surgical team were randomly allocated into drainage and no drainage groups (60 in each group). Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, presence of cirrhosis, resection-related factors and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
                The groups were comparable in terms of demographics, indications for surgery, preoperative liver function test results, presence of cirrhosis, extent of hepatectomy, intraoperative blood loss and requirement for blood transfusion. Symptomatic subphrenic collection and pleural effusion occurred in four patients (7 per cent) who had abdominal drainage and three (5 per cent) who did not. Local wound complications occurred in 17 (28 per cent) and two (3 per cent) patients respectively (P < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was similar in the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of cirrhosis and abdominal drainage were independently related to the development of postoperative wound complications.
                Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method. Drainage after cholecystectomy remains routine despite the lack of scientific supportive data. Numerous clinical studies in the past have attempted to address this controversy but have failed to resolve the issue for different reasons. These include retrospective design, inclusion of only selected cases, and randomization before surgery. In this study 479 patients undergoing cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to a drainage group (a high-pressure suction drain in Morison's pouch for 48 hours) or a nondrainage group. Randomization was performed at the time of peritoneal closure. All patients undergoing cholecystectomy, both elective and urgent, were included and the operations were performed by all grades of surgeons. There were two deaths from cardiopulmonary causes, both in the drainage group. No patient required reoperation in either group. The incidence of both wound infections (15 vs 5; p less than 0.05) and chest infections (56 vs 19, p less than 0.02) was significantly higher in the drainage group. Three hundred fifty-six patients underwent abdominal ultrasonography 72 hours after surgery. The number of subhepatic fluid collections thus detected was significantly higher in the patients who received a drain (17 vs 6, p less than 0.05). None of these collections was clinically significant. The postoperative hospital stay was longer in the patients with drains (10.3 vs 9.1 days), but this difference failed to reach statistical significance. We conclude from this study that the use of a drain after cholecystectomy serves no useful purpose and is potentially harmful. This practice should be abandoned.
There is no evidence to support routine drain use after uncomplicated liver resections.