Routine drain or no drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

• Published in: The surgeon (Edinburgh) 2021-06, Vol.19 (3), p.167-174
• Main Authors: Cirocchi, Roberto, Kwan, Sherman H, Popivanov, Georgi, Ruscelli, Paolo, Lancia, Massimo, Gioia, Sara, Zago, Mauro, Chiarugi, Massimo, Fedeli, Piergiorgio, Marzaioli, Rinaldo, Di Saverio, Salomone
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acute care surgery; Acute cholecystitis; Drain; Emergency surgery; HBP surgery; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Prophylactic drain; Surgery; Upper GI Surgery
• ISSN: 1479-666X; 2405-5840
• DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.04.011

AbstractBackgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered to be the gold standard in the early management of acute cholecystitis however, recommendations for routine drain insertion in the acute setting are unavailable. Study designA systematic review of literature review and metanalysis was conducted. All studies comparing drain versus no drain after LC for acute cholecystitis were included. ResultsSeven studies, with 1274 patients, were included. Postoperative wound infection rates (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.88; I2 = 0%) and postoperative abdominal collection requiring drainage (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.12; I 2 = 0%) were lower in the no-drain group, but this was only significant for wound infections on subgroup analysis of RCTs. Length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) −0.49, 95% CI -0.89 to −0.09; I 2 = 69%) and operative time (MD -8.13, 95% CI -13.87 to −2.38; I 2 = 92%) were significantly shorter in the no drain group however this was in the context of significant heterogeneity. ConclusionThe available data suggests that acute cholecystitis is not an indication for routine drain placement after LC. However, these results must be interpreted with caution due to the limitations of the included studies. In effect, the main issue of this meta-analysis lies on the limitations of the included studies themselves, because of a considerable heterogeneity among the included works, particularly for the inclusion criteria of patients and reported severity of acute cholecystitis. Further work is required to produce evidence which will definitively alter clinical practice. Level of evidenceLevel 2a (systematic review of cohort studies). Oxford CEBM levels of evidence.