ReviewCureus2025
Optimizing Surgical Drain Removal: A Narrative Review of Timing, Criteria, and Evidence-Based Practices.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative Outcomes of No-Drain Strategy in Primary Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Early Mobilization Training on Mobility, Pain, Comfort, and Sleep Quality in Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical nursing research · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Abdominoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Advantages of negative-pressure suction device compared to traditional chest closed drainage in the management of patients after mediastinal mass resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Review
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
Surgical drains remain a common adjunct in general surgery to prevent fluid collections and detect early postoperative complications. However, their routine use and timing of removal continue to generate debate. This review analyzes evidence-based criteria for drain removal, identifies complications related to prolonged use, and evaluates evolving trends in drain management across gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and abdominal wall procedures. The evidence consistently supports early drain removal typically once drainage output is <50 mL/24 h and non-bilious or non-hemorrhagic being associated with lower rates of surgical site infection, fistula formation, and hospital stay duration. Conversely, delayed removal beyond postoperative day five to seven increases the risk of infection, prolonged inflammation, and wound complications. Biochemical monitoring, particularly amylase and bilirubin levels in pancreatic and biliary drains, enables safer, individualized removal decisions. Early, criteria-based, and selective drain management integrated within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) frameworks improves postoperative outcomes and reduces morbidity in general surgery. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored protocols and continued refinement of evidence-driven drain removal practices.
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.