The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence-based Value of Prophylactic Drainage in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Objective: To determine the evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. Methods: An electronic search of the Medline database from 1966 to 2004 was performed to identify articles comparing prophylactic drainage with no drainage in GI surgery. The studies were reviewed and classified according to their quality of evidence using the grading system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found for hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery, none for upper GI tract, and 13 for lower GI tract surgery. If sufficient RCTs were identified, we performed a meta-analysis to characterize the drain effect using the random-effects model. Results: There is evidence of level 1a that drains do not reduce complications after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis. Drains were even harmful after hepatic resection in chronic liver disease and appendectomy. In the absence of RCTs, there is a consensus (evidence level 5) about the necessity of prophylactic drainage after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy due to the potential fatal outcome in case of anastomotic and gastric leakage. Conclusion: Many GI operations can be performed safely without prophylactic drainage. Drains should be omitted after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis (recommendation grade A), whereas prophylactic drainage remains indicated after esophageal resection and total gastrectomy (recommendation grade D). For many other GI procedures, especially involving the upper GI tract, there is a further demand for well-designed RCTs to clarify the value of prophylactic drainage. Many surgeons consider prophylactic drainage as a method to reduce and detect postoperative complications. On the other hand, there is growing evidence that routine drainage may not be useful or may even be harmful after many GI procedures. There is grade A recommendation that drains do not reduce complications after hepatic, colonic, or rectal resection with primary anastomosis and appendectomy for any stage of appendicitis. The routine use of drains should be revisited.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Cited by
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Kehlet, H. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60357-8 · Cited by 561
Adamina, M., Kehlet, H., Tomlinson, G. A., Senagore, A. J., & Delaney, C. P. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.003 · Cited by 555
Boots, L. M. M., de Vugt, M. E., van Knippenberg, R. J. M., Kempen, G. I. J. M., & Verhey, F. R. J. (2014) · International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/gps.4016 · Cited by 449
Behrns, K. E. (2012) · Yearbook of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ysur.2011.11.001 · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Petrowsky, H., Demartines, N., Rousson, V., & Clavien, P.-A.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 240
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1074-1085
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2032823012
- Cited by
- 467
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence-based Value of Prophylactic Drainage in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000146149.17411.c5
- The paper
- Petrowsky, H., Demartines, N., Rousson, V., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004). Evidence-based Value of Prophylactic Drainage in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000146149.17411.c5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.