Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31334342›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2019

Prophylactic Wound Drainage in Renal Transplantation: A Systematic Review.

Kenneth D'Souza, Sean Patrick Crowley, Ahmer Hameed, Susanna Lam, Henry Claud Pleass, Carlo Pulitano, Jerome Martin Laurence

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Prophylactic Peri-Nephric Drain Placement in Renal Transplant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors.

Kenneth D'SouzaCentral Clinical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sean Patrick CrowleyCentral Clinical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ahmer HameedDepartment of Surgery, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Susanna LamRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, Institute of Academic Surgery, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Henry Claud PleassDepartment of Surgery, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Carlo PulitanoRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital, Institute of Academic Surgery, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jerome Martin LaurenceCentral Clinical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdult kidney transplantation is most commonly into an extraperitoneal potential space, and surgically placed drains are used routinely in many centers. There is limited evidence of clinical benefit for prophylactic drainage in other major abdominal and vascular surgery. Transplantation is, however, a unique setting combining organ dysfunction and immunosuppression, and the risks and benefits of prophylactic drain placement are not known. This study attempts to examine existing literature to determine whether prophylactic intraoperative drains have an impact on the likelihood of perigraft fluid collections and other wound-related complications following kidney transplantation.

methodsA literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted to identify published comparative studies, including recipients receiving prophylactic drains to recipients in whom drains were omitted. The main outcomes were the incidence of peritransplant fluid collections and wound-related complications. Meta-analysis was performed on these data.

resultsFour retrospective cohort studies were deemed eligible for quantitative analysis and 1 additional conference abstract was included in qualitative discussion. A total of 1640 patients, 1023 with drains and 617 without, were included in the meta-analysis. There was a lower rate of peritransplant collections associated with the drain group (RR 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.90). There was no significant difference in the incidence of wound-related complications between the groups (RR 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-2.11).

conclusionsThese data associate a higher rate of peritransplant fluid collections with omission of prophylactic drainage, without a difference in the incidence of wound-related complications. Further research is required to definitively determine the impact of drains in this patient group.

Identifiers

PMID31334342
PMCPMC6616136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.