Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600842›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Evaluation of Drain Insertion After Appendicectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abduelraheim Abu, Ali Yasen Mohamedahmed, Amin Alamin, Mazin Mohamed, Mohamed Osman, Mohammed Jibreel Mohammed, Hiba Abdalla, Hazim A Eltyeb, Omer Ali, Rifat Mohamad and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abduelraheim AbuGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, GBR.
Ali Yasen MohamedahmedGeneral Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS (National Health Service) Trust, Birmingham, GBR.
Amin AlaminGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, London North West University Healthcare NHS (National Health Service) Trust, London, GBR.
Mazin MohamedGeneral Surgery, University Hospitals Sussex NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, Brighton, GBR.
Mohamed OsmanGeneral Surgery, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, GBR.
Mohammed Jibreel MohammedGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Wishaw, Glasgow, GBR.
Hiba AbdallaVascular Surgery, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, GBR.
Hazim A EltyebGeneral Surgery, Health Education North East, Newcastle upon Tyne, GBR.
Omer AliGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital, Kent, GBR.
Rifat MohamadGeneral Surgery, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, Liverpool, GBR.
Safaa HamidGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Kent, GBR.
Shaza Faycal MirghaniGeneral Surgery, Barnet Hospital, London, GBR.
Yousif HamadGeneral Surgery, Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS (National Health Service) Trust, Leeds, GBR.
Hussam Khougali MohamedGeneral and Upper GI (Gastrointestinal) Surgery, University Hospital Hairmyres, Glasgow, GBR.
Princess of Wales Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of drain insertion versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus was conducted, and all studies comparing drain versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis were included. Abdominal collection, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, faecal fistula, paralytic ileus, length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Seventeen studies reporting a total number of 4,255 patients who underwent appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis with (n=1,580) or without (n=2,657) drain were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding abdominal collection (odds ratio (OR)=1.41, P=0.13). No-drain group was superior to the drain group regarding SSI (OR=1.93, P=0.0001), faecal fistula (OR=4.76, P=0.03), intestinal obstruction (OR=2.40, P=0.04) and paralytic ileus (OR=2.07, P=0.01). There was a difference regarding mortality rate between the two groups (3.4% in the drain group vs 0.5% in the no-drain group, risk difference (RD)=0.01, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.04), P=0.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has shown that drains have no effect on the development of intra-abdominal collections in complicated appendicitis, but it can significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications such as fistula, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, ileus and length of hospital stay.

Indexed as

drain insertionintra-abdominal abscessintra-abdominal collectionpostoperative ileusruptured appendicitis

Identifiers

PMID36600842
PMCPMC9799077
OpenAlexW4310985695

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.