Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29741752›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

Zhe Li, Longshuan Zhao, Yao Cheng, Nansheng Cheng, Yilei Deng

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Association of Polish Surgeons (APS) clinical guidelines for the use of laparoscopy in the management of abdominal emergencies. Part II.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Antimicrobial Challenge in Acute Care Surgery.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zhe LiDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No. 1, Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China, 450000.
Longshuan Zhao
Yao Cheng
Nansheng Cheng
Yilei Deng
First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CNDalian Medical University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.This is an update of the review first published in 2015.

objectivesTo assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 June 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 June 2017), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 30 June 2017), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 June 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2017) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 30 June 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in people undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. MAIN

resultsWe included six RCTs (521 participants), comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia and Africa. The majority of the participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was at low risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of abdominal drainage and no drainage on intra-peritoneal abscess at 14 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-quality evidence) or for wound infection at 14 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-quality evidence). The increased risk of 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity) in the drainage group was rated as very low-quality evidence (RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There is 'very low-quality' evidence that drainage increases hospital stay compared to the no drainage group by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants).Other outlined outcomes, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life, were not reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe quality of the current evidence is very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to no drainage group is also subject to great uncertainty. Thus, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 people recruited to the studies. Larger studies are needed to determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes more reliably.

Indexed as

Abdominal AbscessAppendectomyAppendicitisDrainageEmergenciesHumansLength of StayPeritoneal DiseasesPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29741752
PMCPMC6494575
OpenAlexW2948818522

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.