ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2021
Association of gravity drainage and complications following Whipple: an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP targeted database.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based approach for intraabdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Prevalence of and risk factors for surgical site infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Letter to the Editor: Passive Versus Active Intra-abdominal Drainage Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Authors' Reply: Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Study Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Establishment of risk prediction model of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: 2016 edition of definition and grading system of pancreatic fistula: a single center experience with 223 cases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal type of operative drainage following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. Our objective is to investigate risk associated with closed drainage techniques (passive [gravity] vs. suction) after PD.
methodsWe assessed operative drainage techniques utilized in patients undergoing PD in the ACS-NSQIP pancreas-targeted database from 2016 to 2018. Using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for characteristics of the patient, procedure, and pancreas, we examined the association between use of gravity drainage and postoperative outcomes.
resultsWe identified 9665 patients with drains following PD from 2016 to 2018, of which 12.7% received gravity drainage. 61.0% had a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma or pancreatitis, 26.5% had a duct <3 mm, and 43.5% had a soft or intermediate gland. After multivariable adjustment, gravity drainage was associated with decreased rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio [OR] 0.779, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.653-0.930, p=0.006), delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.830, 95% CI 0.693-0.988, p=0.036), superficial SSI (OR 0.741, 95% CI 0.572-0.959, p=0.023), organ space SSI (OR 0.791, 95% CI 0.658-0.951, p=0.012), and readmission (OR 0.807, 95% CI 0.679-0.958, p=0.014) following PD.
conclusionsGravity drainage is independently associated with decreased rates of CR-POPF, DGE, SSI, and readmission following PD. Additional prospective research is necessary to better understand the preferred drainage technique following PD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.