ReviewCureus2024
Comparative Effectiveness of Surgical Drainage Techniques and Postoperative Interventions for Reducing Complications: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A pilot study on microbial dynamics in drainage fluid during trauma recovery.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review assessed the comparative effectiveness of surgical drainage techniques and postoperative interventions in reducing complications across various surgical fields. We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, covering studies from January 2019 to September 2024. Ten randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria, focusing on human surgical patients and comparing outcomes such as seroma, hematoma, infection rates, and postoperative pain. Techniques such as pigtail catheters and vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) demonstrated statistically significant improvements in thoracic and orthopedic surgeries, reducing postoperative pain (effect size: 0.35, p < 0.05), pleural effusion (risk ratio: 0.68, p < 0.01), and hospital stays (mean difference: -2.5 days, p < 0.01), while also accelerating wound healing. However, inconsistent results were observed for hemostatic agents like topical gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant and polysaccharide agents, which did not consistently reduce complications in spinal and breast surgeries (effect size range: 0.10-0.20, p > 0.05). These findings suggest that drainage techniques should be tailored to specific surgical procedures and that the routine use of hemostatic agents requires more critical evaluation. Based on these insights, the review recommends prioritizing the use of pigtail catheters and VSD in appropriate contexts while further investigating the effectiveness of hemostatic agents in different surgical fields. This review underscores the need for additional long-term studies and personalized approaches to optimize drainage management in diverse patient populations. Overall, it provides clinicians with concrete recommendations and a framework for improving postoperative care and guiding clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.