The efficacy and safety of using prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized control trial

• Published in: Health science reports Vol. 7; no. 8; pp. e2284 - n/a
• Main Authors: Arnaout, Ahmad Y., Kadoura, Lama, Masri, Ruqaya, Nerabani, Yaman, Atli, Abd Alazeez, Arnaout, Khaled, Arnaout, Ibrahim, Bsata, Adel, Kayali, Hasan, Mahli, Nehad, Al‐Haj, Ahmad, Ayoub, Kusay, Niazi, Ammar, Ghazal, Ahmad, Dabbagh, Ezeddin, Hamdan, Ola, Dabbit, Abdallah, Shahrour, Mohamad Zaher, Alkhaleel, Wael, Alhasan, Hasan Mohammad, Lbabidi, Nour, Matar, Hilal Mohammad, Zidany, Amer, Tammo, Shergal, Sifat, Mousa Ahmad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-08-2024; Wiley
• Subjects: Abdomen; Antibiotics; Body mass index; Cholecystectomy; Disease; Gallbladder; Gallbladder diseases; Hospitals; Infections; Laboratories; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Laparoscopy; Pancreatitis; Patient safety; prophylactic drainage; randomized control trial; Surgery; prophylactic drainage; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; randomized control trial
• ISSN: 2398-8835; 2398-8835
• DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.2284

Background
The use of prophylactic drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been a routine practice for many years. However, the debate surrounding using it stems from conflicting evidence regarding its potential benefits and risks.
Methods
Patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from February 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, at Aleppo University Hospital were enrolled according to our previously registered protocol (NCT05267860).
Results
This study included 232 patients (117 in the drainage group [DG], and 115 in the non‐drainage group [NDG]). There was no statistical difference in the patients' main characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory findings. The duration of the surgical operation in NDG (mean = 44.92, SD = 1.85) was shorter than in DG (mean 55.14, SD = 2.14), with (p = 0.039) statistically significant, which indicates that the use of the drainage led to a prolongation of the surgical operation. The total number of complicated cases reached 22 (9.48%) cases (DG = 9 vs. NDG = 13, p = 0.348) as follows: bleeding (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), bile leak with no established bile duct injury (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), wound infection (n = 12) (DG = 4 vs. NDG = 8; p = 0.443), urinary tract infection (n = 3) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 3; p = 0.079), prolonged shoulder pain (n = 2) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 2; p = 0.152), and acute pancreatitis (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.144).
Conclusion
Based on the results of our study, the use of prophylactic drainage was safe, but ineffective, as it did not improve the outcomes statistically significantly or worsen them, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting the need for personalized patient care in this setting.