Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39044014›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2024

Early Drain Removal Versus Routine Drain Removal After Pancreaticoduodenectomy and/or Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Shiqi Zhu, Minyue Yin, Wei Xu, Chenghao Lu, Shuo Feng, Chunfang Xu, Jinzhou Zhu

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

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

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

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

Shiqi ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China.
Minyue YinDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China.
Wei XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China.
Chenghao LuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China.
Shuo FengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China.
Chunfang XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China.
Jinzhou ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China. jzzhu@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0544-9248

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly drain removal (EDR) has been widely accepted, but not been routinely used in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and benefits of EDR versus routine drain removal (RDR) after PD or DP.

methodsA systematic search was conducted on medical search engines from January 1, 2008 to November 1, 2023, for articles that compared EDR versus RDR after PD or DP. The primary outcome was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Further analysis of studies including patients with low-drain fluid amylase (low-DFA) on postoperative day 1 and defining EDR timing as within 3 days was also performed.

resultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven non-RCTs with a total of 9465 patients were included in this analysis. For the primary outcome, the EDR group had a significantly lower rate of CR-POPF (OR 0.23; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, a lower incidence was observed in delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.63, p = 0.02), Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), postoperative hemorrhage (OR 0.55, p = 0.02), reoperation (OR 0.57, p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.70, p = 0.003) and length of stay (MD -2.04, p < 0.001) in EDR. Consistent outcomes were observed in the subgroup analysis of low-DFA patients and definite EDR timing, except for postoperative hemorrhage in EDR.

conclusionEDR after PD or DP is beneficial and safe, reducing the incidence of CR-POPF and other postoperative complications. Further prospective studies and RCTs are required to validate this finding.

Indexed as

Device RemovalDrainagePancreatectomyPancreatic FistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsHumansTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeClinically relevant pancreatic fistulaDistal pancreatectomyEarly drain removalMeta-analysisPancreaticoduodenectomySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39044014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.