Samraj K, Gurusamy K S
John Radcliffe Hospital, General Surgery, Oxford, UK, OX3 9DU.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;2007(4):CD006099. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006099.pub2.
The nature and indications for thyroid surgery vary and a perceived risk of haemorrhage post-surgery is one reason why wound drains are frequently inserted. However when a significant bleed occurs, wound drains may become blocked and the drain does not obviate the need for surgery or meticulous haemostasis. The evidence in support of the use of drains post-thyroid surgery is unclear therefore and a systematic review of the best available evidence was undertaken.
To determine the effects of inserting a wound drain during thyroid surgery, on wound complications, respiratory complications and mortality.
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1, 2007); MEDLINE (2005 to February 2007); EMBASE (2005 to February 2007); CINAHL (2005 to February 2007) using relevant search strategies.
Only randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Quasi randomised studies were excluded. Studies with participants undergoing any form of thyroid surgery, irrespective of indications, were eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies involving people undergoing parathyroid surgery and lateral neck dissections were excluded. At least 80% follow up (till discharge) was considered essential.
Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by two authors independently, differences were resolved by discussion. Studies were assessed for validity including criteria on whether they used a robust method of random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Missing and unclear data were resolved by contacting the study authors.
13 eligible studies were identified (1646 participants). 11 studies compared drainage with no drainage and found no significant difference in re-operation rates; incidence of respiratory distress and wound infections. Post-operative wound collections needing aspiration or drainage were significantly reduced by drains (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97), but a further analysis of the 4 high quality studies showed no significant difference (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.46). Hospital stay was significantly prolonged in the drain group (WMD 1.18 days, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63).Eleven studies compared suction drain with no drainage and found no significant difference in re-operation rates; incidence of respiratory distress and wound infection rates. The incidence of collections that required aspiration or drainage without formal re-operation was significantly less in the drained group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.92). However, further analysis of only high quality studies showed no significant difference (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.17). Hospital stay was significantly prolonged in the drain group (WMD 1.20 days, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.63). One study compared open drain with no drain. No participant in either group required re-operation. No data were available regarding the incidence of respiratory distress, wound infection and pain. The incidence of collections needing aspiration or drainage without re-operation was not significantly different between the groups and there was no significant difference in length of hospital stay. One study compared suction drainage with passive closed drainage. None of the participants in the study needed re-operation and data regarding other outcomes were not available. Two studies (180 participants) compared open drainage with suction drainage. One study reported wound infections and minor wound collections, both were not significantly different. The other study reported wound collections requiring intervention and hospital stay; both were not significantly different. None of the participants in either study required re-operation. Data regarding other outcomes were not available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence that using drains in patients undergoing thyroid operations significantly improves patient outcomes and drains may be associated with an increased length of hospital stay. The existing evidence is from trials involving patients having goitres without mediastinal extension, normal coagulation indices and the operation not involving any lateral neck dissection for lymphadenectomy.
甲状腺手术的性质和适应症各不相同,术后出血的潜在风险是经常插入伤口引流管的一个原因。然而,当发生大量出血时,伤口引流管可能会堵塞,引流管并不能消除手术或精细止血的必要性。因此,支持甲状腺手术后使用引流管的证据尚不清楚,于是对现有最佳证据进行了系统评价。
确定甲状腺手术期间插入伤口引流管对伤口并发症、呼吸并发症和死亡率的影响。
我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane伤口组专业注册库和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)(2007年第1期);医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE,2005年至2007年2月);荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE,2005年至2007年2月);护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL,2005年至2007年2月),使用了相关检索策略。
仅纳入随机对照试验。排除半随机研究。无论适应症如何,接受任何形式甲状腺手术的参与者的研究均符合本评价的纳入标准。排除涉及甲状旁腺手术和侧颈清扫术患者的研究。至少80%的随访(直至出院)被认为是必要的。
评估研究是否符合纳入标准,并由两位作者独立提取数据,通过讨论解决分歧。评估研究的有效性,包括其是否使用了可靠的随机序列生成和分配隐藏方法的标准。通过联系研究作者解决缺失和不明确的数据。
确定了13项符合条件的研究(1646名参与者)。11项研究比较了引流与不引流,发现再次手术率、呼吸窘迫发生率和伤口感染率无显著差异。引流管显著减少了需要抽吸或引流的术后伤口积液(RR 0.51,95%CI 0.27至0.97),但对4项高质量研究的进一步分析显示无显著差异(RR 1.82,95%CI 0.51至6.46)。引流组的住院时间显著延长(WMD 1.18天,95%CI 0.73至1.63)。11项研究比较了负压引流与不引流,发现再次手术率、呼吸窘迫发生率和伤口感染率无显著差异。引流组中需要抽吸或引流但无需正式再次手术的积液发生率显著较低(RR 0.48,95%CI 0.25至0.92)。然而,仅对高质量研究的进一步分析显示无显著差异(RR 1.78,95%CI 0.44至7.17)。引流组的住院时间显著延长(WMD 1.20天,95%CI 0.77至1.63)。一项研究比较了开放引流与不引流。两组均无参与者需要再次手术。无关于呼吸窘迫发生率、伤口感染和疼痛的数据。两组间需要抽吸或引流但无需再次手术的积液发生率无显著差异,住院时间也无显著差异。一项研究比较了负压引流与被动封闭引流。该研究中无参与者需要再次手术,且无关于其他结局的数据。两项研究(180名参与者)比较了开放引流与负压引流。一项研究报告了伤口感染和轻微伤口积液,两者均无显著差异。另一项研究报告了需要干预的伤口积液和住院时间;两者均无显著差异。两项研究中均无参与者需要再次手术。无关于其他结局的数据。
没有明确证据表明甲状腺手术患者使用引流管能显著改善患者预后,且引流管可能与住院时间延长有关。现有证据来自涉及无纵隔延伸的甲状腺肿患者、凝血指标正常且手术不涉及任何侧颈淋巴结清扫的试验。