Is routine abdominal drainage necessary after liver resection?

Purpose

Prophylactic abdominal drainage is performed routinely after liver resection in many centers. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and validity of liver resection without abdominal drainage and to clarify whether routine abdominal drainage after liver resection is necessary.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis between July, 2006 and June, 2012 were divided into two groups, based on whether surgery was performed before or after, we adopted the no-drain strategy. The “former group” comprised 256 patients operated on between July, 2006 and June, 2009 and the “latter group” comprised 218 patients operated between July, 2009 and June, 2012. We compared the postoperative complications, percutaneous drainage, and postoperative hospital stay between the groups, retrospectively.

Results

There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative bleeding, intraabdominal infection, or bile leakage between the groups. Drain insertion after liver resection did not reduce the rate of percutaneous drainage. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the latter group.

Conclusion

Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis.

     

Is intraabdominal drainage necessary after laparotomy for typhoid intestinal perforation?

PurposeThis study was designed to compare the safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and nondrainage after emergency laparotomy for typhoid intestinal perforation (TIP).MethodsA retrospective review of children 15 years or younger who underwent surgery for TIP from 2002 to 2009 was performed. All children underwent resuscitation and laparotomy and were given antibiotics but were then divided into 2 groups: group I (n = 81), postoperative peritoneal drainage, and group II, (n = 66) no drainage.ResultsThere was no demographic difference between the groups (e.g., mean age 9.6 vs 9.0 years; P = .21). There was no significant difference in mean time for return of bowel function (3.8 vs 4.0 days; P = .6), rate of surgical site infection (63% vs 70%; P = .39), wound dehiscence (36% vs 27%; P = .27), anastomotic leak (2.5% vs 1.5%; P = .27), enterocutaneous fistula formation (10% vs 6.1%; P = .40), intraabdominal abscess formation (4% vs 9%; P = .18), or mean length of hospital stay (22 vs 19 days; P = .26).ConclusionThe results of this study clearly show that routine peritoneal drain placement after laparotomy for TIP is unnecessary, and such drains are not effective in reducing the rate of postoperative complications.     

Shorter postoperative atony after laparoscopic-assisted colonic resection?

BACKGROUND: The duration of the postoperative ileus after laparoscopic surgery remains a controversial topic. The aim of our study was to compare the restoration of intestinal motility after laparoscopically assisted and conventional resection of the distal colon in a canine model. METHODS: Two weeks after the implantation of three electrodes on the jejunum, the distal colon was resected in a laparoscopic-assisted or conventional procedure in two groups of four dogs each. Gastrointestinal motility was monitored by registration of the electromyograhic activity of the small intestine and by intermittent fluoroscopies of radiopaque markers. RESULTS: Electrical activity in the early postoperative period was characterized by the basic electrical rhythm and the absence of spike activity. The first postoperative activity front of the migrating motility complex (MMC), indicating the restoration of motility, occurred significantly earlier after laparoscopic-assisted resection (4.5 +/- 1 hr) than after conventional resection (31 +/- 10 h). Radiological observations showed a significantly delayed gastric emptying and a prolonged transit of radiopaque markers to the rectum after open surgery. CONCLUSION: These results support the hypothesis that laparoscopic-assisted resection of the colon leads to a shortened postoperative atony in comparison to open surgery.     

Is closed-suction drainage necessary after intradural primary spinal cord tumor surgery?

Purpose

The efficacy of closed-suction drainage in primary intradural spinal cord tumor surgery has not been addressed. We investigated whether closed-suction drainage is essential after primary intradural spinal cord tumor surgery.

Methods

From January 2003 to October 2011, 169 consecutive patients with primary intradural spinal cord tumors operated by a single surgeon were selected. Closed-suction drainage was inserted in patients before August 2007, but was not used after August 2007. After removal of tumor and meticulous hemostasis, the opened dura was closed and made watertight using 4-0 silk with interrupt suture and 1.0 cm³ of surgical glue was applied in common. Closed-suction drainage was inserted below the muscular fascia in 75 patients (group I, M:F = 39:36; 46.20 ± 15.63 years) and was not inserted in 94 patients (group II, M:F = 46:48; 51.05 ± 14.89 years).

Results

Neurological deficit precluding ambulation did not occur in all patients. Between group I and II, there were no significant differences in body mass index (22.75 ± 3.16 vs. 23.51 ± 3.22 kg/m²; p = 0.13), laminectomy level (2.45 ± 1.46 vs. 2.33 ± 1.91; p = 0.65), operation time (260.65 ± 109.08 vs. 231.52 ± 90.08 min; p = 0.06), estimated intraoperative blood loss (456.93 ± 406.62 vs. 383.94 ± 257.25 cm³; p = 0.18), and hospital stay period (9.25 ± 5.01 vs. 9.35 ± 5.75 days; p = 0.91). Two patients in group I underwent revision surgery due to wound problems, while revision surgery was not performed in group II (p = 0.20).

Conclusion

Closed-suction drainage may not be essential after primary intradural spinal cord tumor surgery.     

Does epidural analgesia during labour affect the neonate?

Focus has changed from the immediate postpartum condition to the more long-term outcome of the neonate with respect to the use of epidural analgesia in labour. Anaesthesiologists have been slow to respond to the demand for this information. Newer analgesic agents and techniques may offer some advantage to the neonate; however, extensive study is still needed.     

Is an indwelling catheter necessary for bladder drainage after modified Burch colposuspension?

Catheterization is considered to be a mandatory procedure for adequate bladder drainage following an anti-incontinence operation until the recovery of normal voiding function occurs. We conducted this prospective study to challenge this practice. A total of 86 patients with genuine stress incontinence who underwent a modified Burch coplosuspension were randomized into two groups based on the day of operation. The study group consisted of 42 patients who had the transurethral Foley catheter removed postoperatively the next morning (Group A). The control group was composed of 43 patients who had the transurethral indwelling catheter left in place until the fifth postoperative day (Group B). The percentages of immediate voiding difficulties in Groups A and B were 7.1% and 0%, respectively (P >0.05). The postoperative urinary tract infection rates of Groups A and B were 16.6% and 23.3%, respectively (P >0.05). The success rates of our patients were not compromised after our modified operative procedures (78.6% with dry results and 19.0% with improved symptoms in Group A vs. 74.4% with dry results and 20.9% with improved symptoms in Group B, P >0.05). Our results imply that it is not necessary that an indwelling catheter, for bladder drainage, be left in place until the fifth postoperative day to prevent immediate voiding difficulties. Editorial Comment: The authors have performed a prospective randomized clinical trial of two different bladder management schemes involving a urethral catheter following a modified Burch colposuspension. Group A began their voiding trial on Day 1, Group B began their voiding trial on Day 5 after a 2-day clamped catheter bladder training program. Patients were not discharged until they had normal residuals (<100 ml). There were low, not statistically different, rates of immediate voiding difficulty in either group (7.1% vs. 0%) and therefore the only significant difference between the two groups was the length of hospitalization (5.3 days for Group A and 7.4 days for Group B). They conclude that it is not necessary for a urethral catheter to be left in for 5 days. Very few urogynecologists would disagree with this conclusion. The authors should be commended for performing a prospective randomized study of voiding trials. However, the relevance of this study to clinical practice is extremely limited since most urogynecologists do not perform urethral catheter clamping bladder training programs, nor wait 5 days to start a voiding trial     

Does thoracic epidural analgesia improve outcome after lung transplantation?

A best evidence topic was constructed according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether the use of preoperative or early postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is effective in improving outcomes--reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and respiratory complications--in patients undergoing lung transplantation (LTx). Of the 42 papers found using a report search, five presented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, study type, group studied, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are given. We conclude that, on the whole, four out of the five retrieved studies clearly supported the use of TEA as the cornerstone of a multi-faceted strategy for improving outcomes after LTx. Indeed, the interest and benefit was shown not only in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation, but also in reducing the ICU length of stay and the number of respiratory complications. Hence, current evidence suggests TEA to be safe and effective in alleviating postoperative pain and in improving patient recovery, thus enhancing the choice of available medical care and bettering outcome after LTx. However, given the low level of evidence of published studies, prospective trials are warranted to confirm those encouraging results.     

Is total colonic evaluation for anal cancer necessary?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of total colonic evaluation in patients diagnosed with anal cancer. We reviewed the cases of 69 patients treated for neoplasm of the anus from January 1973 through November 1998. Patients underwent a barium enema, flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy; findings from these procedures were analyzed. Anal pathology included: squamous cell carcinoma, 48 patients (72%); adenocarcinoma, 6 patients (9%); and squamous cell carcinoma in situ, 10 patients (15%). Chemoradiation was completed in 41 patients (61%), and 6 patients (9%) underwent abdominal perineal resection. Wide excision was the primary therapy in 15 patients (22%). Procedures included: colonoscopy, 31 patients (46%); flexible sigmoidoscopy only, 15 patients (22%); barium enema only, 3 patients (5%); and a combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy and barium enema, 18 patients (27%). Eighty-five per cent of patients had a normal colonic evaluation. Ten patients (15%) had single or multiple polyps identified. Six adenomatous polyps and two hyperplastic polyps were found. No synchronous colorectal malignancy was identified. We conclude that colonoscopy is an integral part of colonic surveillance in patients diagnosed with anal carcinoma, but our study fails to find evidence to support such intervention. The standard screening recommendation for colorectal cancer based on age and risk factors is appropriate intervention for patients diagnosed with anal cancer; anal cancer itself does not appear to be one of these risk factors.     

Is single-shot epidural analgesia more effective than morphine patient-controlled analgesia for donor nephrectomy?

Objective

We compared single-shot epidural analgesia (20 mL 0.125% levobupivacaine and 3 mg diamorphine) followed by regular tramadol versus morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative pain following donor nephrectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 12 patients who received single-shot epidural analgesia (SSE group) before anesthesia induction, followed by regular tramadol, and 14 patients who received morphine PCA (PCA group) for postoperative pain after donor nephrectomy. Postoperative pain scores were recorded at 0, 1, 12, 24, and 48 hours after nephrectomy. We also collected data regarding morphine consumption, additional analgesia, nausea, antiemetic use, time to oral intake, mobilization, and discharge.

Results

The 2 groups were similar for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, duration of surgery, laparoscopic/open nephrectomy ratio, and intra- and postoperative additional analgesia. There were no significant between-group differences in pain and nausea scores. The SSE group showed lower intra- and postoperative antiemetic use than the PCA group (25% vs 78.5% and 1 dose vs 2.5 doses, respectively; P < .05). The average time to oral fluid and solid food intake and for assisted mobilization were similar in the 2 groups. However, independent mobilization and hospital discharge were significantly sooner in the SSE group (34 hours vs. 47.4 hours; [P < .05] and 3.7 days vs 4.7 days [P < .05], respectively).

Conclusions

In this small pilot study, SSE with 20 mL 0.125% levobupivacaine and 3 mg diamorphine, followed by regular tramadol, provided postoperative analgesia similar to morphine PCA. However, patients in the SSE group used less antiemetic medication, were independently mobile earlier, and were discharged from the hospital earlier than patients in the PCA group.     

Does adrenaline improve epidural bupivacaine and fentanyl analgesia after abdominal surgery?

The alpha-adrenergic agonists have been demonstrated to have synergistic effects with opioids and local anesthetics in animal research. The present study was performed to determine whether the addition of adrenaline improves the analgesic effects of an epidural infusion of a combination of fentanyl and bupivacaine after abdominal surgery. We studied 90 ASA 1 or 2 patients scheduled for abdominal surgery under epidural anaesthesia, with or without general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive a postoperative epidural infusion of fentanyl 5 micrograms/ml in bupivacaine 0.2%, with or without adrenaline 5 micrograms/ml, at a rate of 2 ml/h for more than 48 hours. Postoperative pain relief was assessed using visual analog scales (VAS), both at rest and during coughing, at 2, 24, and 48 hours after surgery. The number of rescue analgesics and side-effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, respiratory depression, headache, muscle weakness, and hypotension were recorded. Patients who received adrenaline (n = 40) reported significantly lower mean VAS scores than those who received no adrenaline (n = 37), both at rest at 24 hours postoperatively and during coughing at 24 and 48 hours. The number of additional analgesics and incidence of side-effects did not differ between groups. In conclusion, the results of the present study demonstrate that the addition of adrenaline to a combination of fentanyl and bupivacaine improves the quality of epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery. Under the conditions of the study, we did not detect any disadvantage from the addition of adrenaline.     

Is preoperative biliary drainage necessary according to evidence-based medicine?

Preoperative biliary drainage has been in use for a long time and is still being performed today in some institutions, but there has been a long-standing issue as to whether the necessity of this procedure has been proven medically. Many problems existed previously, such as systemic complications due to the difficulty in diagnosing and differentiating obstructive jaundice from jaundice left untreated for a long time, or surgeon-based problems such as a lack of surgical skill or undeveloped surgical techniques, or even inexperience in perioperative patient management. These problems, however, are being overcome with time, and the advantages of preoperative biliary drainage are now being questioned according to evidence-based medicine. Several recent controlled trials have clearly shown that preoperative biliary drainage is not necessary for lower bile duct obstruction, although it was noted that surgery after reduction of jaundice by percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) was very easily performed. It is important to understand that preoperative biliary drainage is unnecessary for lower bile duct obstruction, whether the technique follows a percutaneous approach, an endoscopic apporach, or stenting. Although it is still being debated, there have already been several reports regarding whether preoperative biliary drainage is necessary for upper bile duct obstruction, such as hilar bile duct carcinoma. This also needs to be clarified by randomized controlled trials. Aside from preoperative biliary drainage, the utilization of biliary drainage or stenting has been fully recognized as important for removing intrahepatic stones or choledochal stones, as well as for emergency drainage for acute cholangitis and for the treatment of unresectable malignant biliary stenosis. Additionally, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS), using the PTCD, or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) route, plays a major role not only in the removal of biliary stones but also in the diagnosis of cases in which it is difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. Received: August 2, 2000 / Accepted: September 22, 2000