Search

Background: Despite numerous studies over the past few decades, the optimum strategy for deciding when to remove drains following axillary lymphadenectomy remains unknown. This meta-analysis aims to compare time-limited and volume-controlled strategies for drain removal., Methods: A total of 584 titles were identified following a systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cinahl and the Cochrane library; 6 titles met our eligibility criteria. Data were extracted and independently verified by two authors. Time-limited drain removal was defined as drain removal at <5 days; volume-controlled strategies ranged from <20 ml/24 h to <50 ml/24 h., Results: In all the studies, the time-limited approach resulted in earlier drain removal. Development of a seroma is 2.54 times more likely with early drain removal (Mantel-Haenszel Fixed Odds Ratio (OR) 2.54, p < 0.00001). However, there is no difference in infection rates between early and late drain removal (OR = 1.07, p = 0.76)., Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates that a strategy of early drain removal following axillary lymphadenectomy is safe, with no difference in infection rates; however, the incidence of seroma is significantly higher, which may necessitate more demanding outpatient care. There is a need for further well-designed clinical trials to address the clinical equipoise in this common area of surgical practice., (Copyright © 2016 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Groin dissection is commonly performed for the treatment of a variety of cancers, including melanoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, penis or vulva. It is uncertain whether insertion of a drain reduces complication rates, and, if used, the optimum time for drain removal after surgery is also unknown., Objectives: To assess the current level of evidence to determine whether placement of a drain is beneficial after groin dissection in terms of reducing seroma, haematoma, wound dehiscence and wound infection rates, and to determine the optimal type and duration of drainage following groin dissection if it is shown to be beneficial., Search Methods: In September 2014 we searched the following electronic databases using a pre-designed search strategy: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library). In November 2013 we searched Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We did not restrict the search and study selection with respect to language, date of publication or study setting., Selection Criteria: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound drainage with no wound drainage in individuals undergoing groin dissection, where the most superior node excised was Cloquet's node (the most superior inguinal lymph node). No limits were applied to language of publication or trial location. Two review authors independently determined the eligibility of each trial., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors, working independently, screened studies identified from the search; there were no disagreements., Main Results: We did not identify any RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review., Authors' Conclusions: There is a need for high quality RCTs to guide clinical practice in this under-researched area.

Background: Axillary dissection is commonly performed for breast carcinoma. It is uncertain whether insertion of a drain reduces complication rates., Objectives: To assess the effects of wound drainage after axillary dissection for breast carcinoma on the incidence of postoperative seroma formation. Secondary outcome measures include the incidence of infection and length of hospital stay., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Wound and Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Registers (22 February 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 22 February 2013), EMBASE (1966 to 22 February 2013), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (22 February 2013) for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials (22 February 2013). Reference lists of included studies were handsearched by two independent review authors to look for additional eligible trials., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound drainage versus no wound drainage in individuals after axillary dissection for the treatment of breast carcinoma were included. All disease stages were considered. Breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy were considered. Patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection were not included. No limits were applied to language or study location. Two review authors independently determined the eligibility of each study., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study using a predesigned data extraction proforma and assessed risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion with a third review author. Dichotomous variables were analysed using a Mantel-Haenszel model to produce odds ratios (ORs). Continuous variables were analysed using an inverse variance model to produce a mean difference (MD)., Main Results: Seven RCTs including 960 participants were identified. The quality of trials was generally low, with several studies at risk of selection bias, and no studies used blinding during treatment or outcome assessment. There was a high level of statistical variation between the studies, which therefore reduces the reliability of the evidence. The OR for seroma formation was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.91, P = 0.03) in favour of a reduced incidence of seroma in participants with drains inserted. There was no significant difference in infection rates between drainage and no drainage groups (OR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.12, P = 0.14). The mean difference in length of hospital stay, reported in four trials consisting of 600 participants, was 1.47 days greater in the drained population (95% CI 0.67 to 2.28, P = 0.0003). A mean difference of 0.79 fewer postoperative seroma aspirations was found in the drained population (95% CI 1.23 to 0.35 fewer, P = 0.0004) in two trials including 212 participants. No significant difference in volume of seroma aspirations was reported (MD -19.44, 95% CI -59.45 to 20.57, P = 0.34) in three trials including 519 participants. No significant difference in the incidence of lymphoedema was noted (OR 2.31 favouring no drainage, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.37, P = 0.30), with only six instances reported in three trials of 360 participants, nor was any significant difference in the incidence of haematoma observed (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.51, P = 0.53), with only five instances reported in two trials of 314 participants., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited quality evidence that insertion of a drain following axillary lymphadenectomy reduced the odds of developing a seroma and reduced the number of post-operative seroma aspirations. These benefits should be balanced against an increased length of hospital stay in the drained population.

Objective: To determine the evidence-based optimal strategy for management of drains following axillary dissection., Background: Despite randomised control trials addressing the issue over the past 20-30 years, there is no widely accepted consensus as to when drains should be removed post axillary dissection., Methods: We searched the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science Citation Index. References within identified studies were also searched. Studies were independently identified and data extracted according to a pre-determined proforma based on the Cochrane Collaboration data extraction template by two independent researchers. Validity was determined according to a published standard. Discrepancies were corrected by consensus., Results: There was no difference in infection rates between early and late drain removal, hospital stay was reduced when drains were removed earlier, and higher total volume drainage prior to drain removal predicted subsequent seroma formation. The optimal timing of drain removal post axillary dissection could not be determined from the literature., Conclusion: Optimal timing of drain removal following axillary dissection remains unknown after this systematic review due to heterogeneity between included studies leading to an inability to provide evidence-based consensus guidance., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)