Title |
Impact of abdominal drainage systems on postoperative complication rates following liver transplantation
|
---|---|
Published in |
European Journal of Medical Research, August 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40001-015-0163-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sascha Weiss, Franka Messner, Marcus Huth, Annemarie Weissenbacher, Christian Denecke, Felix Aigner, Andreas Brandl, Tomasz Dziodzio, Robert Sucher, Claudia Boesmueller, Robert Oellinger, Stefan Schneeberger, Dietmar Oefner, Johann Pratschke, Matthias Biebl |
Abstract |
Depending on the extent of surgery, coagulation status and the number of anastomoses, drains are routinely used during liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare different drain types with regard to abdominal complication rates. All consecutive full-size orthotopic liver transplantations (LTX) performed over a 7-year period were included in this retrospective analysis. Abdominal drain groups were divided into open-circuit drains and closed-circuit drains. Data are reported as total number (%) or median (range); for all comparisons a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 256 LTX [age 56.89 (0.30-75.21) years; MELD 14.5 (7-40)] was included; 56 (21.8 %) patients received an open-circuit Easy Flow Drain (Group 1) and 200 (78.2 %) a closed-circuit Robinson Drainage System (Group 2). For Groups 1 and 2, overall infection rates were 78.6 and 56 % (p = 0.001), abdominal infection rates 50.82 and 21.92 % (p = 0.001), yeast infection rates 37 and 23 % (p = 0.02), abdominal bleeding rates 26.78 and 17 % (p = 0.07), biliary complication rates 14.28 and 13.5 % (p = 0.51), respectively. In this retrospective series, open-circuit drains were associated with more abdominal complications, mainly due to intraabdominal infections, than were closed-circuit drains. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 28% |
Student > Master | 6 | 24% |
Other | 3 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
Librarian | 1 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 8% |
Unknown | 4 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 40% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 16% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 8 | 32% |