Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511751›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2016

Postoperative drainage does not prevent complications after robotic partial nephrectomy.

Benoit Peyronnet, Benjamin Pradère, Alexandre De La Taille, Franck Bruyère, Nicolas Doumerc, Stéphane Droupy, Christophe Vaessen, Hervé Baumert, Jean-Christophe Bernhard, Morgan Rouprêt and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Are we ready for day-case partial nephrectomy?World journal of urology · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Benoit PeyronnetDepartment of Urology, University of Rennes, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35000, Rennes, France. peyronnetbenoit@hotmail.fr.
Benjamin PradèreDepartment of Urology, University of Rennes, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35000, Rennes, France.
Alexandre De La TailleDepartment of Urology, Henri-Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France.
Franck BruyèreDepartment of Urology, University of Tours, Tours, France.
Nicolas DoumercDepartment of Urology, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Stéphane DroupyDepartment of Urology, University of Nimes, Nimes, France.
Christophe VaessenDepartment of Urology, La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France.
Hervé BaumertDepartment of Urology, Saint-Joseph Hospital, Paris, France.
Jean-Christophe BernhardDepartment of Urology, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Morgan RouprêtDepartment of Urology, La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France.
Arnaud MejeanDepartment of Urology, Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France.
Karim BensalahDepartment of Urology, University of Rennes, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35000, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to assess the impact of a postoperative drainage after RPN.

methodsA retrospective multicentric study included RPN performed at eight centers between 2010 and 2014. Three centers stopped using postoperative drainage early in their RPN experience, whereas other institutions systematically left a drain. Preoperative characteristics, complication rates, need for postoperative imaging or procedure (surgical or radiological) and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups [drainage (D) and no drainage (ND)].

resultsAmong 636 RPNs, 140 were done without drainage (22 %). In the ND group, surgeons were more experienced (>50 cases: 55.7 vs. 15.1 %; p < 0.0001), and tumors were more complex (RENAL score: 7.6 vs. 6.5; p < 0.0001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (21.9 vs. 20.2 %; p = 0.67). The omission of postoperative drainage did not increase requirement of CT scan (RR = 1.03; 95 % CI 0.64-1.67). Length of hospital stay was shorter in the ND group (4.5 vs. 5.5 days; p = 0.007). There were six urinary fistulas: four in the D group (0.8 %) and two in the ND group (1.4 %; p = 0.49). A CT scan was done to confirm the diagnosis of fistula in every case. In multivariate analysis, the omission of drainage was not associated with increased need of postoperative CT scan or major complications but was a predictor of decreased length of stay.

conclusionThe omission of postoperative drainage does not seem to increase the risk of postoperative complications and could safely be omitted after RPN.

Indexed as

DrainagePostoperative CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment FailureUrinary FistulaComplicationsDrainPartial nephrectomyRoboticUrinary fistula

Identifiers

PMID26511751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.