Objective To investigate the effect of postoperative recovery between trans-abdominal drainage and trans-perineum drainage in patients with rectal cancer. Methods The randomized controlled trials which were related with the comparison between trans-abdominal drainage and trans-perineum drainage of rectal cancer patients were searched from January 2006 to January 2016, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.2 software, basing on the data obtained from PubMed, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database. Results The results of meta-analysis showed that, in the aspect of postoperative drainage, there was no significant difference in the postoperative drainage duration 〔MD=–0.03, 95% CI is (–1.63, 1.57), P=0.97〕 , volume of drainage liquid 〔MD=–9.53, 95% CI is (–104.95, 85.90), P=0.84〕 , and extubation time 〔MD=0.25, 95% CI is (–0.31, 0.82), P=0.38〕 between the trans-abdominal drainage group and the trans-perineum drainage group. In terms of postoperative infection, the trans-abdominal drainage could effectively reduce the incidence rate of drainage tube incision infection 〔OR=0.32, 95% CI is (0.21, 0.48), P<0.000 01〕 . However, there was no significant difference in the abdominal incision infection 〔OR=0.84, 95% CI is (0.51, 1.36), P=0.48〕 and pelvic infection 〔OR=0.77, 95% CI is (0.52, 1.15), P=0.20〕 . In addition, compared to the trans-perineum drainage, the trans-abdominal drainage could shorten the time of pain in drainage 〔MD=–5.07, 95% CI is (–6.96, –3.17), P<0.000 01〕 . But, there was no significant difference in the duration of hospitalization 〔MD=0.82, 95% CI is (–0.39, 2.03), P=0.19〕 , incidence of anastomotic bleeding 〔OR=0.95, 95% CI is (0.58, 1.54), P=0.82〕 , and incidence of anastomotic leakage 〔OR=1.33, 95% CI is (0.93, 1.92), P=0.12〕 between the two groups. Conclusion The trans-abdominal drainage could obviously decrease the incidence of drainage tube incision infection and shorten the time of pain in drainage, so it may promote the postoperative rehabilitation of rectal cancer patients.
Objective To investigate the appropriate indication about removing abdominal drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Method The clinical data of 156 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hospital from January 2014 to June 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups, with 76 patients in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) group and 80 patients in the control group according to the type of indications about removing abdominal drainage. The time of removing abdominal drainage, hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and readmission rate during 30 days after surgery were compared between the2 groups. Results Compared with the control group, the time of removing abdominal drainage 〔(6.2±2.5) dvs. (10.8±2.2) d,P<0.001〕and hospital stay〔(11.8±3.4) dvs. (15.7±3.6) d,P<0.001〕 of the ERAS group were both shorter, incidence of abdominal infection was lower〔1.3% (1/76)vs. 10.0% (8/80), P=0.020〕 , but there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula 〔18.4% (14/76) vs. 21.3% (17/80)〕 , delayed gastric emptying〔1.4% (1/76) vs. 7.5% (6/80)〕 , and the readmission rate during 30 days after surgery〔5.3% (4/76) vs. 3.8% (3/80)〕 , P>0.05. Conclusions Indications about removing abdominal drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy by authors are safe.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of unconventional abdominal drainage after laparoscopic hepatectomy.MethodsThe clinicopathologic data of patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver tumors in the Mianyang Central Hospital from June to December 2019 and met the inclusion criteria were retrospectively collected. Based on whether drainage tube was placed in the abdominal cavity during operation, the patients were divided into non-catheterized group (without drainage tube) and catheterized group (with drainage tube). The intraoperative data and postoperative complications (e.g. intraabdominal hemorrhage, bile leakage, abdominal infection, and liver failure) were compared between the two groups. Then, the intraoperative data and postoperative conditions of liver cancer and non-liver cancer patients with or without abdominal drainage tube were compared and analyzed.ResultsA total of 117 eligible patients were included in the study. The non-catheterized group had 59 patients and the catheterized group had 58 patients. The patients with liver cancer had 84 patients (44 non-catheterized patients and 40 catheterized patients) and the patients without liver cancer had 33 patients (15 non-catheterized patients and 18 catheterized patients). ① On the whole, the groups were comparable in the baseline data between the non-catheterized group and the catheterized group, such as gender, age, HBV infection, body mass index, hepatic function index, liver stiffness value, disease category, etc. (P>0.05). Compared with the catheterized group, the non-catheterized group had earlier off-bed activities and earlier flatus time (P<0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P=0.030). However, no statistically significant differences were found in other indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). ② Whether the patients had liver cancer or not, the non-catheterized patients still had earlier off-bed activities and earlier flatus time as compared with the catheterized patients (P<0.001). Among the patients with liver cancer, no difference was found in postoperative hospital stay. However, among the patients without liver cancer, the non-catheterized patients had shorter postoperative hospital stay than the catheterized patients (P=0.042). No statistically significant differences were found in other indicators between the catheterized patients and non-catheterized patients (P>0.05).ConclusionFor technologically skilled laparoscopic hepatectomy center, selectively not placing peritoneal drainage tube after surgery might better promote the health of patients.