Passive versus active intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: does a superior drainage system exist? A protocol for systematic review. Issue 9 (17th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Park, Lily; Baker, Laura; Smith, Heather; Davies, Alexandra; Abou Khalil, Jad; Martel, Guillaume; Balaa, Fady; Bertens, Kimberly A
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 9(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-09-17
• Subjects: fistula -- pancreatic surgery -- drains; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031319
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is the most common cause of major morbidity following pancreatic resection. Intra-abdominal drains are frequently positioned adjacent to the pancreatic anastomosis or transection margin at the time of surgery to aid in detection and management of CR-POPF. Drains can either evacuate fluid by passive gravity (PG) or be attached to a closed suction (CS) system using negative pressure. There is controversy as to whether one of these two systems is superior. The objective of this review is to identify and compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and resource utilisation associated with PG and CS drainage following pancreatic resections. Methods and analysis: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2019, to identify interventional and observational studies comparing PG and CS drains following pancreatic resection. The primary outcome is POPF as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula in 2017. Secondary outcomes include postoperative AE, resource utilisation (length of stay, return to emergency department, readmission and reintervention), time to drain removal and quality of life. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed independently, by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed statistically appropriate. Subgroup analysis by study design will be performed. Study heterogeneity will be calculated with the χ 2 test and reported as I 2 statistics. Statistical analyses will be conducted and displayed using RevMan V.5.3 Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required. The results of this study will be submitted to relevant conferences for presentation and peer-reviewed journals for publication. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123647.