Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/16455466
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
2
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2006-2-3
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
A prophylactic abdominal drainage catheter is routinely inserted by many surgeons in patients after hepatic resection. Between January 2002 and September 2004, 462 consecutive patients who had undergone hepatic resection using a clamp crushing method by the same surgical team were retrospectively divided into the drainage group (n = 357) and the nondrainage group (n = 105). There was no difference in hospital mortality between the two groups of patients (drainage group, 0.6% vs. nondrainage group, 0%; P = 1.0). However, there was a greater incidence of surgical complications in the drainage group (31.4% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001), and greater incidence of wound complications and subphrenic complications in the drainage group compared to the nondrainage group (24.4% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.001). In addition, the mean (+/- SEM) postoperative hospital stay of the drainage group was 13 +/- 6.5 days, which was significantly longer than that of the nondrainage group (9.7 +/- 3.3 days, P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, abdominal drainage and intraoperative bleeding were the independent risk factors that were significantly associated with the incidence of drainage-related complications. The results suggested that routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after hepatic resection when the conventional clamp crushing method is used during parenchyma transection.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Feb
|
| pubmed:issn |
1091-255X
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
10
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
302-8
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2006-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Abdomen,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Ascites,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Bile,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Blood Loss, Surgical,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Cause of Death,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Drainage,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Female,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Hepatectomy,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Intraoperative Complications,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Length of Stay,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Middle Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Pleural Effusion,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Postoperative Complications,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Postoperative Hemorrhage,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Retrospective Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Risk Factors,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Surgical Instruments,
pubmed-meshheading:16455466-Surgical Wound Infection
|
| pubmed:year |
2006
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Abdominal drainage was unnecessary after hepatectomy using the conventional clamp crushing technique.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Comparative Study
|