Top

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

Published in:

01-11-2017 | Review

Prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal resection with extraperitoneal anastomosis: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Authors: Benjamin Menahem, Antoine Vallois, Arnaud Alves, Jean Lubrano

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 11/2017

Abstract

Background

The role of prophylactic pelvic drainage in reducing the postoperative complication rate after rectal surgery remains unclear and controversial.

Objective

This review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials was performed to determine whether drainage of the extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery impacts the postoperative complication rate.

Study eligibility criteria

Study eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal surgery.

Methods

The Medline and Cochrane Trials Register databases were searched for prospective randomized controlled trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after rectal surgery. Studies published until December 2016 were included. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

Results

Three randomized controlled trials involving 660 patients with extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery (330 with and 330 without prophylactic pelvic drains) were included. The overall mortality rate was 0.7% (2/267) in the drain group and 1.9% (5/261) in the no-drain group (P = 0.900). The anastomotic leakage rate was 14.8% (49/330) in the drain group and 16.7% (55/330) in the no-drain group (P = 0.370). The postoperative small bowel obstruction rate was significantly higher in the drain than no-drain group (50/267, 18.7% vs. 33/261, 12.6%; odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–2.60; P = 0.050).

Conclusions

Prophylactic use of pelvic drainage after extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis has no impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or postoperative death. However, it significantly increases the rate of postoperative small bowel obstruction.

Urbach DR, Kennedy ED, Cohen MM (1999) Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2:174–180CrossRef

Karliczek A, Jesus EC, Matos D, Castro AA, Atallah AN, Wiggers T (2006) Drainage or nondrainage in elective colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis 8:259–265CrossRef

Zhang HY, Zhao CL, Xie J, Ye YW, Sun JF, Ding ZH et al (2016) To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis 31:951–960CrossRef

Rondelli F, Bugiantella W, Vedovati MC, Balzarotti R, Avenia N, Mariani E et al (2013) To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis 16:35–42CrossRef

Petrowski H, Demartines N, Rousson V, Clavien PA (2004) Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Ann Surg 240:1074–1084CrossRef

Monnson JR, Weiser MR, Buie WD, Chang GJ, Rafferty JF, Buie WD et al (2013) Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon rectum 56:535–550CrossRef

Vallance A, Wexner S, Berho M, Cahill R, Coleman M, Haboubi N et al (2017) A collaborative review of the current concepts and challenges of anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery. Color Dis 19:O1–O12CrossRef

Vignali A, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Milsom JW, Church JM, Hull TI et al (1997) Factors associated with the occurrence of leaks in stapled rectal anastomoses: a review of 1014 patients. J Am Coll Surg 185:113–121CrossRef

Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA, Klein Kranenbarg E, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group et al (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216CrossRefPubMed

10.

Alves A, Panis Y, Pocard M, Trancart D, Regimbeau J-M, Valleur P (2002) Factors associated with clinically significant anastomotic leakage after large bowel resection: multivariate analysis in 707 patients. World J Surg 26:499–502CrossRefPubMed

11.

Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegard J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicentre trial. Ann Surg 246:207–214CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Alves A, Panis Y, Pocard M, Regimbeau JM, Valleur P (1999) Management of anastomotic leakage after nondiverted large bowel resection. J Am Coll Surg 189:554–559CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hain E, Maggiori L, Manceau G, Mongin C, Prost À la Denise J, Panis Y (2017) Oncological impact of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 104(3):288–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10332

14.

Celerier B, Denost Q, Van Geluwe B, Pontallier A, Rullier E (2016) The risk of definitive stoma formation at ten years after low and ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Color Dis 18:59–66CrossRef

15.

Pommergaard HC, Gessler B, Burcharth J, Angenete E, Haglind E, Rosenberg J (2014) Preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis 16:662–671CrossRef

16.

Denost Q, Rouanet P, Faucheron JL, Panis Y, Meunier B, Cotte E et al (2017) French research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery (GRECCAR). To drain or not to drain infraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal excision for cancer: the GRECCAR 5 randomized trial. Ann Surg 265:474–480CrossRefPubMed

17.

Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A et al (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351CrossRefPubMed

18.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Jadad A, Moore R, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds D, Gavaghan D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Cont Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRef

20.

Hagmuller E, Lorenz D, Werthmann K, Trede M (1990) Uses and risks of drainage following elective colon resection. A prospective randomized and controlled clinical study. Chirurg 61:266–271PubMed

21.

Menningen R, Kusche J, Troidl H (1989) Prophylaktische drainage von koloanastomosen. Coloproctology 11:76–80

22.

Cao HZ, Wang WJ, Li SW, Jiang LX (2012) Study on the safety and feasibility of not placing prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomosis. China Med Pharm 2:23–24

23.

Zhang W, Luo B, Pang MH, Li P (2011) Prophylactic abdominal drainage in patients with colorectal anastomosis: a prospective study. Chin J Dig Surg 10:427–429

24.

Hoffmann J, Shokouh-Amiri MH, Damm P, Jensen R (1987) A prospective controlled study of prophylactic drainage after colonic anastomoses. Dis Colon rectum 30:449–452CrossRefPubMed

25.

Johnson CD, Lamont PM, Orr N, Lennox M (1989) Is a drain necessary after colonic anastomosis? J R Soc Med 82:661–664PubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O (1998) Prophylatic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Association for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 133:309–314CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sagar PM, Couse N, Kerin M, May J, MacFie J (1993) Randomized trial of drainage of colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 80:769–771CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sagar PM, Hartley MN, MacFie J, Mancey-Jones B, Sedman P, May J (1995) Randomized trial of pelvic drainage after rectal resection. Dis Colon rectum 38:254–258CrossRefPubMed

29.

Brown SR, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Heah SM, Tang CL (2001) A prospective randomised study of drains in infra-peritoneal rectal anastomoses. Tech Coloproctol 5:89–92CrossRefPubMed

30.

Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pelissier E et al (1999) Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Assoc Surgical Res Surgery 125:529–535

31.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Hilsabeck JR (1982) The presacral space as a collector of fluid accumulations following rectal anastomosis: tolerance of rectal anastomosis to closed suction pelvic drainage. Dis Colon rectum 25:680–684CrossRefPubMed

33.

Sehapayak S, McNatt M, Carter HG, Bailey W, Baldwin A Jr (1973) Continuous sump-suction drainage of the pelvis after low rectal resection: a reappraisal. Dis Colon rectum 16:485–489CrossRefPubMed

34.

Tsujinaka S, Kawamura YJ, Konishi F, Maeda T, Mizokami K (2008) Pelvic drainage for anterior resection revisited: use of drains in anastomotic leaks. ANZ J Surg 78:461–465CrossRefPubMed

35.

Berliner SD, Burson LC, Lear PE (1967) Intraperitoneal drains in surgery of the colon. Clinical evaluation of 454 cases. Am J Surg 113:646–647CrossRefPubMed

36.

Monson JR, MacFie J, Irving H, Keane FB, Brennana TG, Tanner WA (1986) Influence of intraperitoneal drains on subhepatic collection following cholecystectomy: a prospective clinical trial. Br J Surg 73:993–994CrossRefPubMed

Title: Prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal resection with extraperitoneal anastomosis: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors: Benjamin Menahem
Antoine Vallois
Arnaud Alves
Jean Lubrano
Publication date: 01-11-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2891-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal resection with extraperitoneal anastomosis: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background

Objective

Study eligibility criteria

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Study eligibility criteria

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?

A prospective non-randomized controlled, multicenter trial comparing Appendectomy and Conservative Treatment for Patients with Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis (the ACTUAA study)

Socioeconomic characteristics and comorbidities of diverticular disease in Sweden 1997–2012

Review of local injection of anti-TNF for perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease

Temporary successful results of ventral rectopexy for enterocele surgical correction, about 138 patients

The effect of a geriatric evaluation on treatment decisions for older patients with colorectal cancer