Prospective randomized trial of a closed-suction drain versus a Penrose drain after a colectomy.
Hepatogastroenterology
; 57(102-103): 1119-22, 2010.
Article
en En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-21410042
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Prospective studies in the gastroenterological surgery literature have shown fewer wound related complications with a closed-suction drainage than with an open passive drainage. This study compared the SSI and cost of closed-suction drainage and open passive drainage in a randomized trial. METHODOLOGY: This study involved 112 patients undergoing colectomy from December, 2003 through April, 2007. A closed-suction or an open (Penrose) drainage was used based on the surgeon's preference. The cost and the incidence of complications including SSI was compared in the two drain types. RESULTS: The SSI rate was 13/112 cases 11.6%, but there was no significant difference between the drain groups. In addition, 18 laparoscopic surgery cases did not show any wound infection or drain infections. The closed-suction drain was not expensive regarding personnel expenses and the cost of changing the dressings. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant postoperative differences were observed between a closed-suction drain or an open drain after a colectomy. However, a closed-suction drain management is useful for the reduction of a cost, labor saving, and the decrease of medical waste.
Buscar en Google
Colección:
01-internacional
Base de datos:
MEDLINE
Asunto principal:
Drenaje
/
Colectomía
Tipo de estudio:
Clinical_trials
/
Observational_studies
Límite:
Adult
/
Aged
/
Aged80
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
/
Middle aged
Idioma:
En
Revista:
Hepatogastroenterology
Año:
2010
Tipo del documento:
Article
País de afiliación:
Japón
Pais de publicación:
Grecia