Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, University of Cagliari, Italy.
Cambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Am J Surg. 2020 Jan;219(1):164-174. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.05.006. Epub 2019 May 22.
Clinically evident Anastomotic Leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether Prophylactic Drainage (PD) after colorectal anastomoses confers any advantage in the prevention and management of AL.
Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients with Drained (D) or Undrained (UD) colorectal anastomoses performed for any cause.
Four randomized controlled trials comparing D and UD patients undergoing colorectal resections with primary anastomosis were included for quantitative synthesis. In total, 1120 patients were allocated to group D (n = 566) or group UD (n = 554). The clinical AL rate was 8.5% in the D group and 7.6% in the UD group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.57). Rates of radiological AL (D: 4.2% versus UD: 5.6%; P = 0.42), mortality (D: 3.6% versus UD: 4.4%; P = 0.63), overall morbidity (D: 16.6% versus UD: 18.6%, P = 0.38), wound infection (D: 5.4% versus UD: 5.3%, P = 0.95), pelvic sepsis (D: 9.7% versus UD: 10.5%, P = 0.75), postoperative bowel obstruction (D: 9.9% versus UD: 6.9%, P = 0.07), and reintervention for abdominal complication (D: 9.1% versus UD: 7.9%, P = 0.48) were equivalent between the two groups.
The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the value of PD following colorectal anastomoses does not support the routine use of prophylactic drains.
临床明显的吻合口漏(AL)仍然是结直肠切除术后吻合口的最可怕并发症之一。本系统评价和荟萃分析的主要目的是确定预防性引流(PD)在预防和处理 AL 方面是否有任何优势。
使用 MEDLINE、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册数据库和 EMBASE 数据库进行系统文献检索,以比较任何原因行结直肠吻合术的引流(D)或未引流(UD)患者的临床结局的随机研究。
纳入了 4 项比较行结直肠切除术和吻合术的 D 组和 UD 组患者的随机对照试验进行定量综合分析。共有 1120 例患者被分配到 D 组(n=566)或 UD 组(n=554)。D 组的临床 AL 发生率为 8.5%,UD 组为 7.6%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.57)。放射学 AL 发生率(D:4.2%比 UD:5.6%;P=0.42)、死亡率(D:3.6%比 UD:4.4%;P=0.63)、总发病率(D:16.6%比 UD:18.6%,P=0.38)、伤口感染(D:5.4%比 UD:5.3%,P=0.95)、盆腔脓肿(D:9.7%比 UD:10.5%,P=0.75)、术后肠梗阻(D:9.9%比 UD:6.9%,P=0.07)和腹部并发症的再次干预(D:9.1%比 UD:7.9%,P=0.48)在两组之间无差异。
本荟萃分析纳入了研究结直肠吻合术后 PD 价值的随机对照试验,不支持常规使用预防性引流。