ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Abdominal drainage after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: out of sight, out of mind?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Robot-assisted cholecystectomies take less time to perform than laparoscopy in the urgent setting: a single-centered study evaluating elective and urgent cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Endoscopic management of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single center retrospective analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drainage after left pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsThe use of drains in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The present study investigated postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without intraperitoneal drain placement.
methodsData of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided in drain group (DG), including patients with prophylactic abdominal drain placed, and no-drain group (NDG) including those without drain. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes, using a propensity score-matched analysis.
results116 patients were selected. After matching, DG and NDG consisted of 29 patients each. The rates of POPF and abdominal collection were lower in NDG in comparison to DG (3.4% vs. 27.6%, p 0.025 and 3.4% vs. 31.0%, p 0.011, respectively). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the NDG (5 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001). No difference between the groups was found for other outcomes.
conclusionDrain omission was associated with lower rates of POPF and abdominal collections, as well as shorter hospital stays, not affecting the rate of severe complication, reoperation and readmission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39218834What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.