• RI - Unifesp
    • Documentos
    • Tutoriais
    • Perguntas frequentes
    • Atendimento
    • Equipe
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
  • Sobre
    • RI Unifesp
    • Documentos
    • Tutoriais
    • Perguntas frequentes
    • Atendimento
    • Equipe
  • English 
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
  • Login
View Item 
  •   DSpace Home
  • Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM)
  • EPM - Outras produções
  • View Item
  •   DSpace Home
  • Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM)
  • EPM - Outras produções
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Drainage or nondrainage in elective colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thumbnail
Date
2006-05-01
Author
Karliczek, A.
Jesus, E. C.
Matos, D. [UNIFESP]
Castro, A. A. [UNIFESP]
Atallah, A. N. [UNIFESP]
Wiggers, T.
Type
Resenha
ISSN
1462-8910
Is part of
Colorectal Disease
DOI
10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.00999.x
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Background There is little agreement on prophylactic use of drains in anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery despite many randomized clinical trials. Once anastomotic leakage occurs it is generally agreed that drains Should be used for therapeutic purposes. However, Oil prophylactic use no such agreement exists.Aim To compare the safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and nondrainage regimes after elective colorectal surgery. the primary outcome was clinical anastomotic leakage.Methods A systematic search was undertaken to identify randomized clinical trials. of the 1140 patients who were enrolled (six randomized controlled trials), 573 were allocated for drainage and 567 for no drainage. Outcome measures were: (i) mortality: 3% (18 of 573 patients) compared with 4% (25 of 567 patients); (ii) clinical anastomotic dehiscence: 2% (11 of 522 patients) compared with 1% (7 of 519 patients); (iii) radiological anastomotic dehiscence: 3% (16 of 522 patients) compared with 4% (19 of 519 patients); (iv) wound infection: 5% (29 of 573 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 567 patients); (v) reintervention: 6% (34 of 542 patients) compared with. 5% (28 of 539 patients); (vi) extra-abdominal complications: 7% (34 of 522 patients) compared with 6% (32 of 5 19 patients). None of these differences in outcome was significant.Conclusion There is insufficient evidence showing that routine drainage after colorectal anastomoses prevents anastomotic and other complications.
Citation
Colorectal Disease. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, v. 8, n. 4, p. 259-265, 2006.
Keywords
drainage
colorectal anastomosis
prophylactic
anastomotic leakage
URI
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/28903
Collections
  • EPM - Outras produções [3596]

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us
Theme by 
Atmire NV