Skip to main content
Log in

Open and closed suction drainage after hepatic resection

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A retrospective study was conducted to compare open conduit drains with closed suction drains, with regard to the occurrence of intraperitoneal septic complications after hepatectomy (IPSCH). The subjects comprised 50 consecutive Japanese patients who underwent hepatic resection followed by the insertion of a closed suction drain and the control group comprised 50 patients in whom a simple conduit drain had been placed following liver surgery. There were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, underlying liver disease, or the type of hepatectomy performed; nor was there a significant difference in the incidence of IPSCH, the simple conduit drain group versus the closed suction drain group being (10% versus 8%, respectively). However, bile leakage was highly related to IPSCH, the incidence being 60% and 100% in the simple conduit drain and closed suction drain groups, respectively. Thus, to prevent IPSCH, the treatment of bile leakage is a much more important factor than the type of drain used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cruse PJE, Foord R (1973) A 5-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 107:206–210

    Google Scholar 

  2. Morris AM (1973) A controlled trial of closed wound suction drainage in mastectomy. Br J Surg 60:357–359

    Google Scholar 

  3. Raves JJ, Slifkin M, Diamond DL (1984) A bacteriologic study comparing closed suction and simple conduit drainage. Am J Surg 148:618–620

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nagasue N, Yukaya H, Ogawa Y, Higashi T (1983) Portal pressure following partial to extensive hepatic resection in patients with and without cirrhosis of the liver. Ann Chir Gynaecol 72:18–22

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alexander JW, Korelitz J, Alexander NS (1976) Prevention of wound infections: A case for closed suction drainage to remove wound fluids deficient in opsonic protein. Am J Surg 132:59–63

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yanaga K, Kanematsu T, Sugimachi K, Takenaka K (1986) Intraperitoneal septic complications after hepatectomy. Ann Surg 203:148–152

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson R, Tranberg KG, Bengmark S (1990) Roles of bile and bacteria in biliary peritonitis. Br J Surg 77:36–39

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wells CL, Rotstein OD, Pruett TL, Simmons RL (1986) Intestinal bacteria translocate into experimental intra-abdominal abscesses. Arch Surg 121:102–107

    Google Scholar 

  9. Saadia R, Schein M, MacFarlane C, Boffard KD (1990) Gut barrier function and the surgeon. Br J Surg 77:487–492

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Horn R, Meakins JL (1988) The microbiology of multiple organ failure: The proximal gastrointestinal tract as an occult reservoir of pathogens. Arch Surg 123:309–315

    Google Scholar 

  11. Page CP (1989) The surgeon and gut maintenance. Am J Surg 158:485–490

    Google Scholar 

  12. Franco D, Karaa A, Meakins JL, Borgonovo G, Smadja C, Grange D (1989) Hepatectomy without abdominal drainage: Results of a prospective study in 61 patients. Ann Surg 210:748–750

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nishizaki, T., Matsumata, T., Yanaga, K. et al. Open and closed suction drainage after hepatic resection. Surg Today 23, 871–874 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311364

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311364

Key Words

Navigation