Prophylactic Wound Drainage in Renal Transplant: A Survey of Practice Patterns in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES

Drains are used routinely in many centers at the conclusion of kidney transplant, despite a paucity of evidence to guide practice in kidney transplant. Studies have not shown benefit from prophylactic drain placement following other major abdominal and vascular operations, and usage is consequently declining. Our aim was to understand practice patterns and rationale for behavior in drain placement and management in kidney transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an online survey of surgeons who routinely perform kidney transplants across Australia and New Zealand.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66% (43/66). Of respondents, 61% reported routine drain insertion, whereas 21% seldom inserted drains. Concerns about bleeding and anticoagulation (63%) and routine practice (58%) were the dominant reasons for drain insertion. The factors selected as most significant in determining drain removal were both volume and time (44%) and volume alone (33%). A volume of < 50 mL/day (51%) was the most commonly reported threshold for removal. The postoperative period of days 3 to 5 was the most commonly selected time point for drain removal (63%). Seventy-four percent of respondents would consider enrolling their patients in a randomized controlled trial to determine the benefits and harms of drain insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

Although drain insertion is a common practice, transplant surgeons in Australia and New Zealand reported sufficient uncertainty concerning the potential benefits and harms to warrant design and conduct of a randomized controlled trial.