Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38402268›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Early Versus Late Drainage Removal in Patients Who Underwent Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Using Trial Sequential Analysis.

Claudio Ricci, Davide Giovanni Grego, Laura Alberici, Carlo Ingaldi, Stefano Togni, Ermenegilda De Dona, Riccardo Casadei

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Claudio RicciDivision of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. claudio.ricci6@unibo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6638-4479
Davide Giovanni GregoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC); Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Laura AlbericiDivision of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Carlo IngaldiDivision of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Stefano TogniDivision of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ermenegilda De DonaDivision of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Riccardo CasadeiDivision of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe superiority of early drain removal (EDR) versus late (LDR) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has been demonstrated only in RCTs.

methodsA meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and trial sequential analysis. The critical endpoints were morbidity, redrainage, relaparotomy, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates were also evaluated. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Type I and type II errors were excluded, comparing the accrued sample size (ASS) with the required sample size (RIS). When RIS is superior to ASS, type I or II errors can be hypothesized.

resultsASS was 632 for all endpoints except DGE and PPH (557 patients). The major morbidity (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32-0.97) was lower in the EDR group. The CR-POPF rate was lower in the EDR than in the LDR group (RR 0.50), but this difference is not statistically significant (95% CI 0.24-1.03). The RIS to confirm or exclude these results can be reached by randomizing 5959 patients. The need for percutaneous drainage, relaparotomy, PPH, DGE, and readmission rates was similar. The related RISs were higher than ASS, and type II errors cannot be excluded. LOS was shorter in the EDR than the LDR group (MD - 2.25; 95% CI - 3.23 to - 1.28). The RIS was 567, and type I errors can be excluded.

conclusionsEDR, compared with LDR, is associated with lower major morbidity and shorter LOS.

Indexed as

DrainagePancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsHumansLength of StayPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsPancreatic fistulaPancreatic surgeryProphylactic drainages

Identifiers

PMID38402268
PMCPMC10997728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.