Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38878063›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2024

No drains versus drains after perforated peptic ulcer repair: A randomized controlled trail.

Mohammed Elshwadfy Nageeb, Wael Tobar, Ahmed Saqr, Amr Aly Ragab, Ahmed Mohammed Salah Eldeen Othman Elansary

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

Trial report in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06084741 (Omitting of Usage of Intraabdominal Drains After Repair of Peptic Ulcer Perforations Compared to Traditional Use of Drains; Comparative Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT06084741 nacompletednot on this map

Omitting of Usage of Intraabdominal Drains After Repair of Peptic Ulcer Perforations Compared to Traditional Use of Drains; Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled100ConditionsPeptic Ulcer PerforationsArmsOmitting of usage of intraabdominal drains after repair of peptic ulcer perforations, Using intraabdominal drains
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. No-drain strategy for perforated peptic ulcer: no consensus yet.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Mohammed Elshwadfy NageebCairo University, Cairo, Egypt. mohammedelshwadfy@kasralainy.edu.eg.
Wael TobarCairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed SaqrCairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Amr Aly RagabCairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed Mohammed Salah Eldeen Othman ElansaryCairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study aimed to evaluate safety of omitting the intraabdominal drains after perforated peptic ulcer repairs. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial from January 2022 to January 2024 at the Emergency surgery department. Patients with perforated peptic ulcers were evaluated for eligibility. They were randomly assigned into two groups. In group A: two intraabdominal drains (pelvic and hepatorenal). in group B: no intraabdominal drains. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS), and the secondary outcomes included parameters of recovery and 30-day morbidities. The data were analyzed using SPSS 16 ®.

resultsThirty five patients were in the no drain group, while 36 patients were in the drain group. Patients in the no drains group had significantly earlier bowel motion (21.6 vs 28.69 hours; p = 0.004), fluid diet (73.54 vs 86.78 hours; p 0.001), and solid intake (84.4 vs. 98 hours; p 0.001), less pain severity (p = 0.0001) and shorter hospital stay (4.74 vs 5.75 days; p 0.001). A significant less morbidity, including surgical site infection (p = 0.01), and respiratory complications (p 0.0001), were in the no drain group. There was no difference of fever duration nor wound dehiscence.

conclusionsOmitting the intraabdominal drains is safe after peptic ulcer perforation repair. It can improve outcomes. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06084741.

Indexed as

DrainageLength of StayPeptic Ulcer PerforationAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesAnd intraabdominal drainsERAS protocolPerforated duodenal ulcer

Identifiers

PMID38878063

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.