Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41246741›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Optimizing Surgical Drain Removal: A Narrative Review of Timing, Criteria, and Evidence-Based Practices.

Mark Salib, John Salib, Elias Kondilis, Almir Music, Matthew Phillips

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Mark SalibSchool of Medicine, St. George's University School of Medicine, St. George's, GRD.
John SalibSchool of Medicine, St. George's University School of Medicine, St. George's, GRD.
Elias KondilisGeneral Surgery, Community First Medical Center, Chicago, USA.
Almir MusicGeneral Surgery, Community First Medical Center, Chicago, USA.
Matthew PhillipsGeneral Surgery, Community First Medical Center, Chicago, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

criteria for drain removaldrain managementdrain protocolsenhanced recovery after surgery (eras)fluid outputpostoperative caresurgical complicationssurgical drainstiming of drain removal

Identifiers

PMID41246741
PMCPMC12612791

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.