Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17943873›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

K S Gurusamy, K Samraj, P Mullerat, B R Davidson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00986544 (Drain After Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00986544 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2009, after this paper: background citation

Drain After Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Roma La SapienzaRan2009 to 2011Enrolled106ConditionsCholelithiasisArmsno drain, drain positioned, drain not positioned
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004
    Pooled it
  9. Meta-analysis of drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. The value of drains as a fistula mitigation strategy for pancreatoduodenectomy: something for everyone? Results of a randomized prospective multi-institutional study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015
    Trial
  12. Prevention of postlaparoscopic shoulder pain by forced evacuation of residual CO(2).JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Trial
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

K S GurusamyRoyal Free and University College School of Medicine, University Department of Surgery, 9th Floor, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG. kurinchi2k@hotmail.com
K Samraj
P Mullerat
B R Davidson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

objectivesThe aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN

resultsWe analysed six trials involving 741 patients randomised to drain (361) versus no drain (380). The only patient with abdominal collections requiring intervention belonged to the drain group. Wound infection was significantly higher in those with a drain (OR 5.86, 95% CI 1.05 to 32.70). Drainage was associated with nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group and the number of patients discharged at the day of operation was significantly reduced in the no drain group (OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.57, 1 trial). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). This trial suggests that suction drains carried less pain than passive drains. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDrain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicAbdomenAbdominal PainCholecystolithiasisDrainageFemaleHumansMalePostoperative Nausea and VomitingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShoulder PainSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.