Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

  • Podda, Mauro1
  • Di Saverio, Salomone2
  • Davies, R Justin2
  • Atzeni, Jenny3
  • Balestra, Francesco4
  • Virdis, Francesco5
  • Reccia, Isabella6
  • Jayant, Kumar6
  • Agresta, Ferdinando7
  • Pisanu, Adolfo3
  • 1 Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, University of Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Italy)
  • 2 Cambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom. , (United Kingdom)
  • 3 Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, University of Cagliari, Italy. , (Italy)
  • 4 Department of General, Emergency and Robotic Surgery, San Francesco Hospital, Nuoro, Italy. , (France)
  • 5 Department of General Surgery, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. , (United Kingdom)
  • 6 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. , (United Kingdom)
  • 7 Department of General Surgery, Adria Civil Hospital, Adria, Italy. , (Italy)
Published Article
American journal of surgery
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.05.006
PMID: 31138400


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. Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times