Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKarliczek, A.
dc.contributor.authorJesus, E. C.
dc.contributor.authorMatos, D. [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorCastro, A. A. [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorAtallah, A. N. [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorWiggers, T.
dc.identifier.citationColorectal Disease. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, v. 8, n. 4, p. 259-265, 2006.
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.en
dc.relation.ispartofColorectal Disease
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.subjectcolorectal anastomosisen
dc.subjectanastomotic leakageen
dc.titleDrainage or nondrainage in elective colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen
dc.contributor.institutionUNIFOA Ctr Univ Volta Redonda
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.description.affiliationUniv Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Surg, Groningen, Netherlands
dc.description.affiliationUNIFOA Ctr Univ Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista Med, Disciplina Gastroenterol Cirurg, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista Med, Disciplina Gastroenterol Cirurg, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record