Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 467

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 access
Petrowsky, Henrik, Demartines, Nicolas, Rousson, Valentin, Clavien, Pierre-Alain·2004·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sla.0000146149.17411.c5

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 467

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.