Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37670194›Full record

Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023

Early drain removal after live liver donor hepatectomy is safe - a randomized controlled pilot study.

Parthiban Durairaj, Viniyendra Pamecha, Nihar Mohapatra, Nilesh Sadashiv Patil, Gaurav Sindwani

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04504487 ("Early Versus Routine Drain Removal After Live Liver Donor Hepatectomy- a Randomized Controlled, Open Label, Pilot Study".), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 74% of its field
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.

NCT04504487 nacompletednot on this map

"Early Versus Routine Drain Removal After Live Liver Donor Hepatectomy- a Randomized Controlled, Open Label, Pilot Study".

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, IndiaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled108ConditionsLiver TransplantArmsDrain Removal
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Parthiban DurairajDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Acharya Shree Tulsi Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, India.
Viniyendra PamechaDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Acharya Shree Tulsi Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, India. viniyendra@yahoo.co.uk.
Nihar MohapatraDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Acharya Shree Tulsi Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, India.
Nilesh Sadashiv PatilDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Acharya Shree Tulsi Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, India.
Gaurav SindwaniDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe current study aimed to assess the safety of early drain removal after live donor hepatectomy (LDH).

methodsOne hundred eight consecutive donors who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to early drain removal (EDR - postoperative day (POD) 3 - if serous and the drain bilirubin level was less than 3 mg/dl - "3 × 3" rule) and routine drain removal (RDR - drain output serous and less than 100 ml). The primary outcome was to compare the safety. The secondary outcome was to compare the postoperative morbidity.

resultsPreoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters except for the timing of drain removal were comparable. EDR was feasible in 46 out of 54 donors (85.14%) and none required re-intervention after EDR. There was significantly better pain relief with EDR (p = 0.00). Overall complications, pulmonary complications, and hospital stay were comparable on intention-to-treat analysis. However, pulmonary complications (EDR - 1.9% vs RDR - 16.3% P = 0.030), overall complications (18.8% vs 36.3%, P = 0.043), and hospital stay (8 vs 9, P = 0.014) were more in the RDR group on per treatment analysis. Bile leaks were seen in three donors (3.7% in the EDR group vs 1.9% in RDR, P = 0.558), and none of them required endo-biliary interventions. Re-exploration for intestinal obstruction was required for 3 donors in RDR (0% vs 5.7%; p = 0.079).

conclusionEDR by the "3 × 3" rule after LDH is safe and associated with better pain relief. On per treatment analysis, EDR was associated with significantly less hospital stay and lower pulmonary and overall complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical Trials.gov - NCT04504487.

Indexed as

HepatectomyLiving DonorsHumansLiverPainPilot ProjectsDonor hepatectomyEarly drain removalLive donor liver transplant

Identifiers

PMID37670194
OpenAlexW4386453286

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.