Gastric cancer surgery without drains: a prospective randomized trial. Is prophylactic placement of drains necessary after subtotal gastrectomy? Effect of drainage on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. [Uses and risks of drainage following elective colon resection. A prospective, randomized and controlled clinical study]. Cholecystectomy is safer without drainage: the results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Total gastrectomy with or without abdominal drains. A prospective randomized trial. There is no need for nasogastric decompression after partial gastrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy. A prospective, controlled study of prophylactic drainage after colonic anastomoses. Drainage after cholecystectomy. A prospective randomized clinical trial.
Prophylactic drain placement during major abdominal surgery has been widely practiced without clear scientific evidence to support it. We hypothesized that prophylactic drain placement is not necessary in gastric cancer surgery. A randomized prospective trial was conducted between February 1, 2001, and July 30, 2001. Patients were randomly assigned to either the drain group or the no-drain group. One hundred seventy patients completed the study by undergoing either subtotal or total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection. Surgical outcome between the two groups was compared within the subtotal and total gastrectomy subgroups. Postoperative complication within 30 days was the primary end point of the study. No significant difference was noted in the incidence of postoperative complication between the drain group and the no-drain group. The results of this study suggest that prophylactic drain placement does not offer additional benefit for patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery with extended lymph node dissection. To determine the evidence-based values of prophylactic drainage in gastric cancer surgery.
                One hundred and eight patients, who underwent subtotal gastrectomy with D1 or D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer between January 2001 and December 2005, were divided into drain group or no-drain group. Surgical outcome and post-operative complications within four weeks were compared between the two groups.
                No significant differences were observed between the drain group and no-drain group in terms of operating time (171 +/- 42 min vs 156 +/- 39 min), number of post-operative days until passage of flatus (3.7 +/- 0.5 d vs 3.5 +/- 1.0 d), number of post-operative days until initiation of soft diet (4.9 +/- 0.7 d vs 4.8 +/- 0.8 d), length of post-operative hospital stay (9.3 +/- 2.2 d vs 8.4 +/- 2.4 d), mortality rate (5.4% vs 3.8%), and overall post-operative complication rate (21.4% vs 19.2%).
                Prophylactic drainage placement is not necessary after subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer since it does not offer additional benefits for the patients. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a high incidence of postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Pneumoperitoneum created during the operation and residual gas after the operation are two of the factors in postoperative pain and nausea. We studied the effects of a subdiaphragmatic gas drain, which is intended to decrease the residual gas, on postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                Seventy patients were randomized into two demographically and clinically comparable groups: drainage and control. Postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting were measured by verbal grading and visual analog scale 2-72 h postoperatively. Analgesic and antiemetic use and incidence of retching, vomiting and other complaints were also recorded.
                Subdiaphragmatic drain effectively reduced the incidence and amount of subdiaphragmatic gas bubble. The incidence and severity of nausea was lower in the drainage group at 72 h. Although severity of pain was lower at 8 and 12 h in the drainage group, the difference was not significant. There was also no difference between the groups in regard to analgesic and antiemetic use.
                Subdiaphragmatic drain offers only minor, if any, benefit on postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and this effect is probably clinically irrelevant. 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. 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. The most common postoperative complications of total gastrectomy are esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage and subphrenic abscess. These complications are a cause of morbidity and mortality, relaparotomy, and longer postoperative stay. The use of abdominal drains is useful for the early diagnosis and management of anastomotic leaks. The aim of this study was to analyze our experience with total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with and without abdominal drains, and to evaluate the results regarding postoperative morbidity, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative days for oral intake, relaparotomy and mortality. This prospective and randomized study examines the results in 60 consecutive patients (43 males and 17 females) with gastric cancer who underwent total gastrectomy in the Regional Clinical Hospital of Concepción, Chile, between 2000 and 2003. Patients were divided into two groups: group I (without drains) and group II (two drains). We found 31 patients in group I and 29 patients in group II. The mean length of postoperative stay was 12.9 days in group I and 18.8 days in group II (p = 0.0242, s.). Morbidity was 9.7% in group I and 37.9% in group II (p = 0.0242, s.). Re-explorations were more frequent in group II (24.1%) versus group I (9.7%) (p = 0.1239, n.s.). Postoperative days for oral intake were 9.4 in group I and 12.8 in group II (p = 0.0514, n.s.) Mortality was 0% in group I and 3.4% in group II (p = 0.4833, n.s.). In our experience, morbidity and postoperative hospital stay were statistically higher in the group of patients with abdominal drains. To find out if routine nasogastric tube decompression is necessary after radical gastrectomy with systematic extensive lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer.
                Prospective randomised trial.
                Surgical Department, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.
                74 patients with gastric cancer including 11 with gastric outlet obstruction who underwent radical distal gastrectomy.
                After operation, 37 patients were randomised to receive nasogastric intubation and 37 not to have it.
                Morbidity, mortality, and speed of recovery.
                No patient died after operation. The groups were comparable for the day of starting oral diet, rate of reinsertion of nasogastric tube and morbidity. Patients who were not intubated mobilised more quickly, and spent less time in hospital. Only one of seven patients with gastric outlet obstruction who had not been intubated needed to be so.
                Routine postoperative nasogastric decompression is unnecessary after radical gastrectomy even in the presence of gastric outlet obstruction. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was designed to study the influence of a corrugated latex drain on anastomotic integrity, wound infection, and respiratory complications after elective colonic resections above the pelvic peritoneum. Sixty patients entered the trial; 28 were drained and 32 undrained. Three patients in the undrained group died soon after surgery of causes unrelated to their colon anastomoses. There were no other differences in the incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups. When an anastomosis leaked, neither feces nor pus emerged via the drain. It is concluded that while the drains did not increase the incidence of postoperative complications, neither did they accomplish the purpose for which they were inserted. If, in addition, the economic cost of drainage is considered, it would seem that there is no advantage in inserting prophylactic drains after colonic anastomoses and their routine use needs to be reconsidered. This prospective clinical study was done to assess the efficacy of postcholecystectomy drainage. A total of 173 cholecystectomized patients were randomized into two groups; group A (86 patients) without drainage and group B (87 patients) with drainage. Group B included two types of patients; B1 (52 patients) with suction drain and B2 (35 patients) with gravity drain. Evidence of wound infection, chest complications, and duration of hospital stay were recorded in every case. Ninety five patients were assessed for chest complications and subhepatic collection by chest x-ray and abdominal ultrasonography. In group B patients the total amount of fluid drained was measured. The results were analysed by appropriate statistical methods. There was no significant difference in the rate of wound infection or atelectasis in either group, although there was apparent increase of lung complications and subhepatic collections in Group B1. The average postoperative hospital stay was significantly increased in group B patients. Considering all the parameters of this study, it was found that drainage with gravity was attended with the least morbidity.
We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.