Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41658720›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

The Role of Drains in Complicated Appendicectomy in Adults: A Narrative Review.

Narayan Khanal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

1 author.

Narayan KhanalGeneral Surgery, Albury Wodonga Health, Albury, AUS.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drain placement after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis remains a subject of ongoing debate. Although drains were traditionally used to prevent intra-abdominal abscesses, more recent evidence indicates limited benefit and potential harm. Substantial international variation persists, and there is no clear consensus regarding indications and clinical benefit. In light of this, we conducted a narrative review of the literature from 2010 to 2025 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Randomised controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines evaluating drain use after appendicectomy in complicated appendicitis were included. Evidence was synthesised regarding postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound complications, length of stay, and need for reintervention. Most contemporary studies demonstrate that routine drainage does not reduce postoperative IAA and is associated with increased wound complications, pain, and postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS). Major guidelines generally recommend against routine drainage, favouring irrigation and adequate source control instead. Routine drain placement after perforated appendicitis is not supported by current evidence. Selective use may be considered in limited situations where optimal source control is uncertain. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to clarify indications and identify subgroups that may benefit.

Indexed as

abdominal drainageappendicectomycomplicated appendicitisintra-abdominal abscessessurgical drains

Identifiers

PMID41658720
PMCPMC12875354

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.