Urbach D R, Kennedy E D, Cohen M M
Department of Surgery, Maternal, Infant and Reproductive Health Research Unit at the Centre for Research in Women's Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Surg. 1999 Feb;229(2):174-80. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199902000-00003.
Many surgeons continue to place a prophylactic drain in the pelvis after completion of a colorectal anastomosis, despite considerable evidence that this practice may not be useful. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine if placement of a drain after a colonic or rectal anastomosis can reduce the rate of complications.
A search of the Medline database of English-language articles published from 1987 to 1997 was conducted using the terms "colon," "rectum," "postoperative complications," "surgical anastomosis," and "drainage." A manual search was also conducted. Four randomized controlled trials, including a total of 414 patients, were identified that compared the routine use of drainage of colonic and/or rectal anastomoses to no drainage. Two reviewers assessed the trials independently. Trial quality was critically appraised using a previously published scale, and data on mortality, clinical and radiologic anastomotic leakage rate, wound infection rate, and major complication rate were extracted.
The overall quality of the studies was poor. Use of a drain did not significantly affect the rate of any of the outcomes examined, although the power of this analysis to exclude any difference was low. Comparison of pooled results revealed an odds ratio for clinical leak of 1.5 favoring the control (no drain) group. Of the 20 observed leaks among all four studies that occurred in a patient with a drain in place, in only one case (5%) did pus or enteric content actually appear in the effluent of the existing drain.
Any significant benefit of routine drainage of colon and rectal anastomoses in reducing the rate of anastomotic leakage or other surgical complications can be excluded with more confidence based on pooled data than by the individual trials alone. Additional well-designed randomized controlled trials would further reinforce this conclusion.
尽管有大量证据表明在结直肠吻合术后在盆腔放置预防性引流管可能并无益处,但许多外科医生仍继续这样做。作者进行了一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定结肠或直肠吻合术后放置引流管是否能降低并发症发生率。
使用“结肠”“直肠”“术后并发症”“手术吻合术”和“引流”等术语对1987年至1997年发表的英文文章的Medline数据库进行检索。还进行了人工检索。确定了四项随机对照试验,共414例患者,比较了结肠和/或直肠吻合术常规引流与不引流的情况。两名评价者独立评估这些试验。使用先前发表的量表对试验质量进行严格评估,并提取死亡率、临床和影像学吻合口漏发生率、伤口感染率及主要并发症发生率的数据。
研究的总体质量较差。引流管的使用对所检查的任何结果发生率均无显著影响,尽管该分析排除任何差异的效力较低。汇总结果比较显示,临床漏的优势比为1.5,支持对照组(不放置引流管)。在所有四项研究中观察到的20例漏中,发生在放置引流管患者身上的,只有1例(5%)在现有引流管的流出物中实际出现了脓液或肠内容物。
基于汇总数据比单独的个体试验更有信心排除结肠和直肠吻合术常规引流在降低吻合口漏或其他手术并发症发生率方面的任何显著益处。更多设计良好的随机对照试验将进一步强化这一结论。