Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review

Alexander Bull; Philip H. Pucher; Jesper Lagergren; James A. Gossage

doi:10.1093/dote/doab069

Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review

Alexander Bull, Philip H. Pucher, Jesper Lagergren, James A. Gossage

Comprehensive Cancer Centre

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modern enhanced recovery protocols discourage drain use due to negative impacts on patient comfort, mobility, and recovery, and lack of proven clinical benefit. After oesophagectomy, however, drains are still routinely placed. This review aimed to assess the evidence for, and how best to use chest drains after oesophageal surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane collaboration databases. Studies reporting outcomes for different types or uses of thoracic drainage, or outcomes related to drains after trans-thoracic oesophagectomy were included. Studies were collated into domains based on variations in number, position, type, removal criteria, diagnostic use and complications of drains. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scores. RESULTS: Among 434 potentially relevant studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and these included 2564 patients. Studies that examined the number of drains showed pain reduction with a single drain compared to multiple drains (3 studies, n = 103), and transhiatal placement compared to intercostal (6 studies, n = 425). Amylase levels may aid diagnosis of anastomotic leak (9 studies, n = 888). Narrow calibre Blake drains may effectively drain both air and fluid (2 studies, n = 163). Drain removal criteria by daily drainage volumes of up to 300 mL did not impact subsequent effusion rates (2 studies, n = 130). Complications related directly to drains were reported by 3 studies (n = 59). CONCLUSION: Available evidence on the impact of thoracic drainage after oesophagectomy is limited, but has the potential to negatively affect outcomes. Further research is required to determine optimum drainage strategies.

Original language	English
Article number	doab069
Journal	Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
Volume	35
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doab069
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2022

Keywords

Esohageal cancer
Esophageal cancer surgery
Esophagogastric anastomosis

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1093/dote/doab069

Cite this

@article{be68c96b8168459ebcbc5cc7e37ccfdd,

title = "Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Modern enhanced recovery protocols discourage drain use due to negative impacts on patient comfort, mobility, and recovery, and lack of proven clinical benefit. After oesophagectomy, however, drains are still routinely placed. This review aimed to assess the evidence for, and how best to use chest drains after oesophageal surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane collaboration databases. Studies reporting outcomes for different types or uses of thoracic drainage, or outcomes related to drains after trans-thoracic oesophagectomy were included. Studies were collated into domains based on variations in number, position, type, removal criteria, diagnostic use and complications of drains. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scores. RESULTS: Among 434 potentially relevant studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and these included 2564 patients. Studies that examined the number of drains showed pain reduction with a single drain compared to multiple drains (3 studies, n = 103), and transhiatal placement compared to intercostal (6 studies, n = 425). Amylase levels may aid diagnosis of anastomotic leak (9 studies, n = 888). Narrow calibre Blake drains may effectively drain both air and fluid (2 studies, n = 163). Drain removal criteria by daily drainage volumes of up to 300 mL did not impact subsequent effusion rates (2 studies, n = 130). Complications related directly to drains were reported by 3 studies (n = 59). CONCLUSION: Available evidence on the impact of thoracic drainage after oesophagectomy is limited, but has the potential to negatively affect outcomes. Further research is required to determine optimum drainage strategies.",

keywords = "Esohageal cancer, Esophageal cancer surgery, Esophagogastric anastomosis",

author = "Alexander Bull and Pucher, {Philip H.} and Jesper Lagergren and Gossage, {James A.}",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/dote/doab069",

language = "English",

volume = "35",

journal = "Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus",

issn = "1120-8694",

publisher = "Oxford University Press (OUP)",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Chest drainage after oesophageal resection

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Bull, Alexander

AU - Pucher, Philip H.

AU - Lagergren, Jesper

AU - Gossage, James A.

PY - 2022/7/1

Y1 - 2022/7/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Modern enhanced recovery protocols discourage drain use due to negative impacts on patient comfort, mobility, and recovery, and lack of proven clinical benefit. After oesophagectomy, however, drains are still routinely placed. This review aimed to assess the evidence for, and how best to use chest drains after oesophageal surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane collaboration databases. Studies reporting outcomes for different types or uses of thoracic drainage, or outcomes related to drains after trans-thoracic oesophagectomy were included. Studies were collated into domains based on variations in number, position, type, removal criteria, diagnostic use and complications of drains. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scores. RESULTS: Among 434 potentially relevant studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and these included 2564 patients. Studies that examined the number of drains showed pain reduction with a single drain compared to multiple drains (3 studies, n = 103), and transhiatal placement compared to intercostal (6 studies, n = 425). Amylase levels may aid diagnosis of anastomotic leak (9 studies, n = 888). Narrow calibre Blake drains may effectively drain both air and fluid (2 studies, n = 163). Drain removal criteria by daily drainage volumes of up to 300 mL did not impact subsequent effusion rates (2 studies, n = 130). Complications related directly to drains were reported by 3 studies (n = 59). CONCLUSION: Available evidence on the impact of thoracic drainage after oesophagectomy is limited, but has the potential to negatively affect outcomes. Further research is required to determine optimum drainage strategies.

AB - BACKGROUND: Modern enhanced recovery protocols discourage drain use due to negative impacts on patient comfort, mobility, and recovery, and lack of proven clinical benefit. After oesophagectomy, however, drains are still routinely placed. This review aimed to assess the evidence for, and how best to use chest drains after oesophageal surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane collaboration databases. Studies reporting outcomes for different types or uses of thoracic drainage, or outcomes related to drains after trans-thoracic oesophagectomy were included. Studies were collated into domains based on variations in number, position, type, removal criteria, diagnostic use and complications of drains. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scores. RESULTS: Among 434 potentially relevant studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and these included 2564 patients. Studies that examined the number of drains showed pain reduction with a single drain compared to multiple drains (3 studies, n = 103), and transhiatal placement compared to intercostal (6 studies, n = 425). Amylase levels may aid diagnosis of anastomotic leak (9 studies, n = 888). Narrow calibre Blake drains may effectively drain both air and fluid (2 studies, n = 163). Drain removal criteria by daily drainage volumes of up to 300 mL did not impact subsequent effusion rates (2 studies, n = 130). Complications related directly to drains were reported by 3 studies (n = 59). CONCLUSION: Available evidence on the impact of thoracic drainage after oesophagectomy is limited, but has the potential to negatively affect outcomes. Further research is required to determine optimum drainage strategies.

KW - Esohageal cancer

KW - Esophageal cancer surgery

KW - Esophagogastric anastomosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134427133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/dote/doab069

DO - 10.1093/dote/doab069

M3 - Article

C2 - 34585242

AN - SCOPUS:85134427133

SN - 1120-8694

VL - 35

JO - Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus

JF - Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus

IS - 7

M1 - doab069

ER -

Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this