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.

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.

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.

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.

The routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is still controversial. The aim of this expertise-based study is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic AD in terms of postoperative complications and analyze the factors linked to AD placement.

This case-control retrospective study included patients with cholelithiasis who underwent LC with AD (AD group) and LC without drainage (no-AD group) in two Italian centers. Allocation to groups was non-randomized and based on surgeons' decisions. Patient's characteristics, operative results, postoperative outcomes, surgeon's expertise related data were compared between the two groups with univariate and multivariate analysis.

Patients in the two groups were comparable for age, sex ratio, and morbidity. Length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) in the no-AD group was shorter than the AD group. Patients in the AD group had a higher rate of wound infection. No difference in postoperative pain measured 7 days after the surgery was found. Our results show an association between the first operator's expertise and age and the decision of placing the AD. The operative time seems to be the principal factor impacting the decision whether to place or not the AD.

Our results indicate that it is feasible not to insert routine AD after elective LC for cholelithiasis. The use of AD seems to cause more cases of postoperative wound infections, prolongs the LOS and the operative time. The drain placement choice seems to change in relation to the surgeon's expertise.

Although many studies have investigated control of postoperative pain, inadequacy of treatment still remains. In this study, we aimed to identify a method with the capacity to minimize abdominal and right shoulder pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

A total of 684 subjects, 77% (n=527) female and 23% (n=157) male, were included in this study. A T-drain was prescribed for patients requiring bile duct exploration and patients with acute cholecystitis were excluded from the study. Subjects were classified into groups as follows: Group 1: control group without drain and intraperitoneal analgesics; Group 2: a drain was placed but no intraperitoneal analgesic was applied; Group 3: no drain was placed and intraperitoneal subhepatic bupivacaine was applied; and Group 4: drain was placed and intraperitoneal subhepatic bupivacaine was applied. Parietal pain and visceral pain were evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS).

A drain was present in 51.9% (n=355) of the cases. A statistically significant difference was found between the preoperative pulse rate measurements of the cases according to the groups ( P =0.009; <0.01). Subhepatic bupivacaine was administered in 50.1% (n=355) of the cases. A statistically significant difference was found between the second, fourth, sixth, 12th, and 24th hour VAS scores of the cases according to the groups [2 h VAS scores (mean±SD): Group 1: 3.58±1.07, Group 2: 3.86±1.12, Group 3: 1.20±0.67, and Group 4: 1.50±1.21 ( P <0.001)]; [4 h VAS scores (mean±SD): Group 1: 2.55±1.26, Group 2: 2.87±1.14, Group 3: 1.66±1.06, and Group 4: 2.02±1.23 ( P <0.001)]; [6 h VAS scores (mean±SD): Group 1: 2.50±0.91, Group 2: 2.53±1.14, Group 3: 1.66±1.06, and Group 4: 2.02±1.23 ( P <0.001)]; [12 h VAS scores (mean±SD): Group 1: 3.24±1.2, Group 2: 3.49±1.14, Group 3: 2.83±0.98, and Group 4 : 2.99±1.36 ( P <0.001)]; and [24 h VAS scores (mean±SD): Group 1: 3.75±0.99, Group 2: 4.01±0.91, Group 3: 3.61±1.34, and Group 4: 4.01±1.08 ( P <0.001)].

Bupivacaine spraying reduces postoperative abdominal pain, while drain placement minimizes shoulder pain by reducing CO 2 remaining under the diaphragm.

This is a prospective randomized controlled trial to investigate the effect of routine abdominal drainage on postoperative pain after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis. This study was a single-center randomized controlled trial performed at the general surgery ward of Taleghani hospital, in Tehran, Iran, from July 2018 to October 2018. Patients were randomly divided into two parallel groups, one receiving routine abdominal drainage and the other receiving no treatment. Postoperative pain was measured by the Universal Pain Assessment Tool (UPAT) 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. A total of 60 patients (30 patients in the study and control groups) were included. GLM repeated measure analysis showed a significant time*treatment effect for routine abdominal drainage in decreasing UPAT scores from baseline to 24 h after surgery (F = 4.59, df = 3.98, P-value = 0.001). Our findings demonstrated that abdominal drainage significantly reduces postoperative pain 0, 2, 4, 6, and 12 h after surgery (P-value<0.05). We also showed that abdominal drainage increases the time to first morphine sulfate administration and decreases the total dose of morphine sulfate administration (P-value<0.001). Moreover, we demonstrated that abdominal drainage decreases the average postoperative pain (P-value<0.001) and does not lead to any considerable side effects. However, 24 h after surgery, no significant pain-relieving effect was evident for abdominal drainage. In conclusion, insertion of abdominal drainage leads to decreased postoperative pain. Future studies need to investigate the optimal time for removal of the abdominal drain. This trial was prospectively registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with a registration ID of IRCT20130706013875N2.

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

To evaluate whether conventional postoperative drainage is more effective than not providing drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

A search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of LC surgery with and without an abdominal drain.

Twenty-one RCTs involving 3246 patients (1666 with drains vs 1580 without) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of incidence of intra-abdominal fluid (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.81-1.49; P = .54) or post-surgical mortality (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.04-4.72; P = .50) between the two groups. Abdominal drains did not reduce the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95-1.42; P = .15) or shoulder tip pain (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.76-1.38; P = .86). The abdominal drain group displayed significantly higher pain scores (MD: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.69-1.46; P < .001) than the non-drainage patients. Abdominal drains prolonged the duration of the surgical procedure (MD: 5.69 min; 95% CI: 2.51-8.87; P = .005) and postoperative hospital stay (MD: 0.47 day; 95% CI: 0.14-0.80; P = .005). Wound infection was found to be associated with the use of abdominal drains (RR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.11-3.47; P = .02).

Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of routine drainage after LC in non-complicated benign gallbladder disease. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.

To evaluate the clinical role of the routine use of a drain in an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy operation applied to patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis not showing acute inflammation.

Following laparoscopic removal of the gallbladder, patients were separated into two groups of 30 each, either with subhepatic drain placement or without. The presence of subhepatic fluid collection was evaluated with transabdominal ultrasonography (USG) at 24 hours postoperatively and on the 7th day. The other parameters evaluated were postoperative morbidity, shoulder and abdominal pain.

No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in respect of demographic characteristics and operative details. The median pain score was determined to be statistically significantly higher in the group with a drain applied compared to the group without a drain (p=0.007). In the comparison between the groups of fluid collection on USG at 24 hours and shoulder pain persisting until the 7th day, although seen less in the group with no drain applied, no statistically significant difference was determined (p=0.065, p=0.159). In the examinations made on the 7th day, no hematoma or significant fluid collection was determined on USG and no wound infection was observed in any patient of either group.

The routine application of prophylactic subhepatic drain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure did not show any benefit to the patient.

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until August 2016. We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status. We used standard methodological procedures in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 2398 participants were randomised to drain (1197 participants) versus 'no drain' (1201 participants) in 16 trials included in this article. Pain 24 h after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (MD1.31; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.65; p < 0.00001). Abdominal drainage prolonged operative time (MD 5.77 min; 95% CI 4.98 min-6.57 min; p < 0.00001) but not the length of hospital stay (MD 0.21 days; 95% CI -0.00 days to 0.42 days; p = 0.05). No significant difference was present with respect to the intra-abdominal fluid, wound infection, nausea or vomit, mortality after operation. There is no significant advantage of drain placement after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomized clinical trials should be carefully re-considered.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both acute and elective surgery. Nevertheless, reports from national surveys still seem to represent some doubts regarding its diffusion. There is neither a wide consensus on its indications nor on its possible related morbidity. On the other hand, more than 25 years have passed since the introduction of LC, and we have all witnessed the exponential growth of knowledge, skill and technology that has followed it. In 1995, the EAES published its consensus statement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in which seven main questions were answered, according to the available evidence. During the following 20 years, there have been several additional guidelines on LC, mainly focused on some particular aspect, such as emergency or concomitant biliary tract surgery.

In 2012, several Italian surgical societies decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of gallbladder diseases in adults, to update and supplement the existing guidelines with recommendations that reflect what is known and what constitutes good practice concerning LC.

Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

An electronic search of Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to June 2013 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The odds ratio for qualitative variables and standardized mean difference for continuous variables were calculated.

Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1939 patients randomized to a drain (960) versus no drain (979). The morbidity rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.10; P = .003). The wound infection rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 4.51; P = .01). Abdominal pain 24 hours after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (standardized mean difference, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 3.34; P < .0001). No significant difference was present with respect to the presence and quantity of subhepatic fluid collection, shoulder tip pain, parenteral ketorolac consumption, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay.

This study was unable to prove that drains were useful in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

With the development of imaging technology and surgical techniques, pancreatic resections to treat pancreatic tumors, ampulla tumors, and other pancreatic diseases have increased. Pancreaticoduodenectomy, one type of pancreatic resection, is a complex surgery with the loss of pancreatic integrity and various anastomoses. Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy such as pancreatic fistulas and anastomosis leakage are common and significantly associated with patient outcomes. Pancreatic fistula is one of the most important postoperative complications; this condition can cause intraperitoneal hemorrhage, septic shock, or even death. An effective way has not yet been found to avoid the occurrence of pancreatic fistula. In most medical centers, the frequency of pancreatic fistula has remained between 9% and 13%. The early detection and routine drainage of anastomotic fistulas, pancreatic fistulas, bleeding, or other intra-abdominal fluid collections after pancreatic resections are considered as important and effective ways to reduce postoperative complications and the mortality rate. However, many recent studies have argued that routine drainage after abdominal operations, including pancreaticoduodenectomies, does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications. Although inserting drains after pancreatic resections continues to be a routine procedure, its necessity remains controversial. This article reviews studies of the advantages and disadvantages of routine drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy and discusses the necessity of this procedure.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has largely replaced conventional cholecystectomy in the past decade. However, there are still limited data about the value of prophylactic sub-hepatic drainage for elective uncomplicated LC. We carried out a systematic review of the literature in order to perform a meta-analysis about this issue. An unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2013 was performed. Overall, seven high-methodological quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, resulting in 1310 patients totally. The incidence of abdominal collections, wound infection and overall mortality according to the presence or absence of the sub-hepatic drainage were meta-analyzed. Sub-hepatic drainage showed an increase in the abdominal collection rate in patients who underwent elective uncomplicated LC (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00-2.43) if compared to patients without drainage. A non-significant correlation was found in overall mortality and infection rates. The meta-analysis shows that the presence of the sub-hepatic drainage does not reduce the incidence of abdominal collection after uncomplicated LC, whereas it does not influence wound infection and mortality rates, postoperative pain and hospital stay.

During laparoscopic surgery for an acutely inflamed gallbladder, most surgeons routinely insert a drain. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the need for drainage in these cases, and the use of a drain remains controversial.

This retrospective study divided 457 cases into two groups according to whether or not a drain was inserted and reviewed the surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity.

In this study, 231 patients had no drains and 226 had drains. Both groups were comparable in terms of pathology, demographics, and operative details. There was no statistical difference in operating time, visual analog scale for pain, or postoperative hospital stay. Morbidity occurred in 49 cases (10.7%) and did not differ significantly between the two groups. No mortality occurred in this study.

The routine use of a drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for an acutely inflamed gallbladder had no effect on the postoperative morbidity. Therefore, this retrospective study supports that it is feasible not to insert a drain routinely in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients who have an acutely inflamed gallbladder.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status.

We used standard methodological procedures defined by The Cochrane Collaboration.

A total of 1831 participants were randomised to drain (915 participants) versus 'no drain' (916 participants) in 12 trials included in this review. Only two trials including 199 participants were of low risk of bias. Nine trials included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and one trial did not provide this information. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant difference between the drain group (1/840) (adjusted proportion: 0.1%) and the 'no drain' group (2/841) (0.2%) (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.37) in short-term mortality in the ten trials with 1681 participants reporting on this outcome. There was no significant difference between the drain group (7/567) (adjusted proportion: 1.1%) and the 'no drain' group (3/576) (0.5%) in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events in the seven trials with 1143 participants reporting on this outcome (RR 2.12; 95% CI 0.67 to 7.40) or in the number of serious adverse events in each group reported by eight trials with 1286 participants; drain group (12/646) (adjusted rate: 1.5 events per 100 participants) versus 'no drain' group (6/640) (0.9 events per 100 participants); rate ratio 1.60; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87). There was no significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups (one trial; 93 participants; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.63). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (one trial; 68 participants; drain group (0/33) (adjusted proportion: 0.2%) versus 'no drain' group (11/35) (31.4%); RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.75). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (five trials; 449 participants; MD 0.22 days; 95% CI -0.06 days to 0.51 days). The operating time was significantly longer in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (seven trials; 775 participants; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI 2.69 minutes to 7.30 minutes). There was no significant difference in the return to normal activity and return to work between the groups in one trial involving 100 participants. This trial did not provide any information from which the standard deviation could be imputed and so the confidence intervals could not be calculated for these outcomes.

There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomised clinical trials are necessary.

The cause of bile duct leaks can be either iatrogenic or more rarely, traumatic. The most common cause is related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. While surgical repair has been the standard for many years, management in these often morbid and complex situations must currently be multidisciplinary incorporating the talents of interventional radiologists and endoscopists. Based on the literature and in particular the recent recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), this review aims to update the management strategy. The incidence of these complications decreases with surgeon experience attesting to the value of training to prevent these injuries. Bile duct injuries must be categorized and their mapping detailed by magnetic resonance cholangiography MRCP or endoscopic cholangiography (ERCP) when endoscopic therapy is considered. Endoscopic management should be preferred in the absence of complete circumferential interruption of the common bile duct. The ESGE recommends insertion of a plastic stent for 4 to 8 weeks without routine sphincterotomy. For complete circumferential injuries, hepaticojejunostomy is usually necessary. In conclusion, adequate training of surgeons is essential for prevention since the incidence of bile duct injury decreases with experience. Faced with a bile duct injury, a multidisciplinary team approach, involving radiologists, endoscopists and surgeons improves patient outcome.