Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39235643›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024

The Rationale of sub-hepatic drainage on a specialist biliary unit: a review of 6140 elective and urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomies and bile duct explorations.

Haitham Qandeel, Israa Hayyawi, Ahmad H M Nassar, Hwei J Ng, Khurram S Khan, Subreen Hasanat, Haneen Ashour

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Haitham QandeelHashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.
Israa HayyawiInverclyde Royal Hospital, Greenock, Scotland.
Ahmad H M NassarGolden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Ahmad.Nassar@glasgow.ac.uk.
Hwei J NgRoyal Alexandra Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Khurram S KhanSchool of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Subreen HasanatHashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.
Haneen AshourHashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrains are used to reduce abdominal collections after procedures where such risk exists. Using abdominal drains after cholecystectomy has been controversial since the open surgery era. Universally accepted indications and agreement exist that routine drainage is unnecessary but the role of selective drainage remains undetermined. This study evaluates the indications and benefits of sub-hepatic drainage in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and bile duct exploration (BDE) in a specialist unit with a large biliary emergency workload.

methodsProspectively collected data from 6,140 LCs with a 46.6% emergency workload over 30 years was reviewed. Demographic factors, pre-operative presentations, imaging and operative details in patients with and without drains were compared. Sub-hepatic drains were inserted after all transductal explorations, subtotal cholecystectomies, almost all open conversions and 94% of LC for empyemas. Adverse or beneficial postoperative drain-related outcomes were analysed.

resultsAbdominal drains were utilised in 3225/6140 (52.5%). Patients were significantly older with more males. 59.4% were emergency admissions. Preoperative imaging showed thick-walled gallbladders in 25.2% and bile duct stones or dilatation in 36.2%. At operation they had cystic duct stones in 19.8%, acute cholecystitis, empyema or mucocele in 28.4% and operative difficulty grades III or higher in 59%. 38% underwent BDE, 5.4% had fundus-first dissection and the operating times were longer ( 80 vs.45 min). Drain related complications were rare; 3 abdominal pains after anaesthetic recovery settling when drains were removed, 2 drain site infections and one re-laparoscopy to retrieve a retracted drain. 55.8% of 43 bile leaks and 35% of 20 other collections in patients with drains resolved spontaneously.

conclusionsThe utilisation of drains in this study was relatively high due to the high emergency workload and interest in BDE. While drains allowed early detection of bile leakage, avoiding some complications and monitoring conservative management to allow early reinterventions, the study has identified operative criteria that could potentially limit drain insertion through a selective policy.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicDrainageElective Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAbdominal drainFundus first dissectionLaparoscopic bile duct explorationLaparoscopic cholecystectomySubhepaticSubtotal cholecystectomy

Identifiers

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.