A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The Rationale of sub-hepatic drainage on a specialist biliary unit: a review of 6140 elective and urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomies and bile duct explorations. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Drains are used to reduce abdominal collections after procedures where such risk exists. Using abdominal drains after cholecystectomy has been controversial since the open surgery era. Universally accepted indications and agreement exist that routine drainage is unnecessary but the role of selective drainage remains undetermined. This study evaluates the indications and benefits of sub-hepatic drainage in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and bile duct exploration (BDE) in a specialist unit with a large biliary emergency workload.

Methods: Prospectively collected data from 6,140 LCs with a 46.6% emergency workload over 30 years was reviewed. Demographic factors, pre-operative presentations, imaging and operative details in patients with and without drains were compared. Sub-hepatic drains were inserted after all transductal explorations, subtotal cholecystectomies, almost all open conversions and 94% of LC for empyemas. Adverse or beneficial postoperative drain-related outcomes were analysed.

Results: Abdominal drains were utilised in 3225/6140 (52.5%). Patients were significantly older with more males. 59.4% were emergency admissions. Preoperative imaging showed thick-walled gallbladders in 25.2% and bile duct stones or dilatation in 36.2%. At operation they had cystic duct stones in 19.8%, acute cholecystitis, empyema or mucocele in 28.4% and operative difficulty grades III or higher in 59%. 38% underwent BDE, 5.4% had fundus-first dissection and the operating times were longer ( 80 vs.45 min). Drain related complications were rare; 3 abdominal pains after anaesthetic recovery settling when drains were removed, 2 drain site infections and one re-laparoscopy to retrieve a retracted drain. 55.8% of 43 bile leaks and 35% of 20 other collections in patients with drains resolved spontaneously.

Conclusions: The utilisation of drains in this study was relatively high due to the high emergency workload and interest in BDE. While drains allowed early detection of bile leakage, avoiding some complications and monitoring conservative management to allow early reinterventions, the study has identified operative criteria that could potentially limit drain insertion through a selective policy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03459-wDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bile duct
12
drains
9
sub-hepatic drainage
8
abdominal drains
8
emergency workload
8
patients drains
8
duct stones
8
bile
5
rationale sub-hepatic
4
drainage
4

Similar Publications