ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Efficacy of abdominal drainage in perforated appendicitis: a retrospective single-center study using AAST grading and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile routine use of abdominal drainage in cases of perforated appendicitis is not generally recommended, there exists a paucity of evidence regarding the detailed stratification of its necessity based on varying degrees of intraoperatively detected abdominal contamination. This study aimed to assess the relationship between abdominal drainage and postoperative outcomes in patients with perforated appendicitis, categorized according to AAST severity grades.
methodsThis study retrospectively included 278 patients with perforated appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic surgery between January 2021 and December 2025. Patients were classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading criteria into AAST grades 3&4 (126 patients) and AAST grade 5 (152 patients). The primary outcome measured was the occurrence of surgical complications within 30 days post-surgery. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed to control for confounding variables, and E-value analysis was conducted alongside multifactorial logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between drainage and outcomes.
resultsIn patients with AAST grade 5 appendicitis, abdominal drainage did not significantly reduce the risk of intra-abdominal abscess (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.54-4.72, P = 0.396) and may be linked to an increased risk of overall surgical complications (aOR = 2.16, 95% CI: 0.88-5.28, P = 0.091). Multifactorial logistic regression analysis indicated that drainage was an independent risk factor for surgical complications (aOR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.02-5.77, P = 0.045). The median length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the drainage group compared to the non-drainage group (5.0 days vs. 3.0 days), as were medical costs (CNY 16,100 vs. CNY 14,100), with both comparisons yielding P < 0.001. Among patients with AAST grades 3&4 appendicitis, no statistically significant differences were observed between the drainage and non-drainage groups regarding overall complications (15.4% vs. 7.0%, P = 0.236) or intra-abdominal abscess (11.5% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.102). Furthermore, in AAST grades 3&4 patients, drainage did not significantly influence the risk of overall complications, abdominal abscesses, or other secondary outcomes (all P > 0.05).
conclusionFor AAST grade 5 perforated appendicitis, routine drainage fails to prevent complications and may increase risks, recovery time, and costs. Likewise, no significant benefit was observed in grades 3&4. Therefore, routine drain use is not recommended, favoring individualized intraoperative decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.