Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature

Background. The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sameh Hany Emile, Tito M. Abd El-Hamed
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2017-01-01
Series:Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6253898
id doaj-83d76257a4334401bb6d9c8843830cb2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-83d76257a4334401bb6d9c8843830cb22020-11-24T22:08:13ZengHindawi LimitedGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-61211687-630X2017-01-01201710.1155/2017/62538986253898Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current LiteratureSameh Hany Emile0Tito M. Abd El-Hamed1General Surgery Department, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, EgyptGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, EgyptBackground. The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical utility of prophylactic drainage and its proper indications. Methods. An organized literature search was conducted querying electronic databases and Google Scholar. Articles evaluating the role of routine prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomosis were included and divided into two categories: articles supporting the use of drains (prodrainage) and articles disputing routine drainage (antidrainage). Results. There were seven systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, one Cochrane review, one randomized controlled trial, and six prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Six studies supported prophylactic drainage of colorectal anastomoses; the quality of these studies ranged between grade II and IV. Nine studies recommended against the use of prophylactic drainage, six studies were grade I, one was grade II, and two were grade IV. Conclusion. Since level I evidence studies including well-designed randomized trials and meta-analyses recommended against the use of pelvic drainage as a routine practice after colorectal anastomoses, we conclude no significant impact of routine drainage on the risk of anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomoses.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6253898
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sameh Hany Emile
Tito M. Abd El-Hamed
spellingShingle Sameh Hany Emile
Tito M. Abd El-Hamed
Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
author_facet Sameh Hany Emile
Tito M. Abd El-Hamed
author_sort Sameh Hany Emile
title Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
title_short Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
title_full Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
title_fullStr Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
title_full_unstemmed Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature
title_sort routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses: an evidence-based review of the current literature
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Gastroenterology Research and Practice
issn 1687-6121
1687-630X
publishDate 2017-01-01
description Background. The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical utility of prophylactic drainage and its proper indications. Methods. An organized literature search was conducted querying electronic databases and Google Scholar. Articles evaluating the role of routine prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomosis were included and divided into two categories: articles supporting the use of drains (prodrainage) and articles disputing routine drainage (antidrainage). Results. There were seven systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, one Cochrane review, one randomized controlled trial, and six prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Six studies supported prophylactic drainage of colorectal anastomoses; the quality of these studies ranged between grade II and IV. Nine studies recommended against the use of prophylactic drainage, six studies were grade I, one was grade II, and two were grade IV. Conclusion. Since level I evidence studies including well-designed randomized trials and meta-analyses recommended against the use of pelvic drainage as a routine practice after colorectal anastomoses, we conclude no significant impact of routine drainage on the risk of anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomoses.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6253898
work_keys_str_mv AT samehhanyemile routinedrainageofcolorectalanastomosesanevidencebasedreviewofthecurrentliterature
AT titomabdelhamed routinedrainageofcolorectalanastomosesanevidencebasedreviewofthecurrentliterature
_version_ 1725817091741712384