Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons' use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67-100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5-20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1-50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey / C. Ricci, N. Pecorelli, A. Esposito, G. Capretti, S. Partelli, G. Butturini, U. Boggi, A. Cucchetti, A. Zerbi, R. Salvia, M. Falconi, L. Alberici, F. Aleotti, S. Alfieri, M. Angrisani, A. Anselmo, E. Bannone, M. Barabino, G. Belfiori, A. Belli, G. Belli, C. Bonatti, G. Borgia, L. Caccamo, D. Campra, D. Caputo, R. Casadei, M. Cescon, D. Citterio, E. Colangelo, M. Colledan, R. Coppola, S. Crippa, T. Dall'Olio, L. De Carlis, D. De Giorgi, R. De Luca, A. Del Vecchio, R.D. Valle, F. Di Benedetto, A. Di Dato, S. Di Domenico, G. Di Meo, P. Di Sebastiano, M.E. Giuseppe, A. Fogliati, A. Frena, F. Gavazzi, B. Giacomo, L. Giannotti, F. Giuliante, G. Grazi, T. Grottola, S. Gruttadauria, C. Ingaldi, F. Isabella, F. Izzo, G. La Barba, S. Langella, G. Lionetto, R. Lombardi, L. Maganuco, L. Maggino, G. Malleo, L. Manzini, G. Marchegiani, A. Marchetti, S. Marcucci, M. Massani, L. Mastrangelo, V. Mazzaferro, M. Mazzola, R. Memeo, C.M. Anna, F. Mocchegiani, L. Moraldi, F. Moro, N. Napoli, G. Nappo, B. Nardo, A.P. Carlo, S. Paiella, D. Papis, A. Patriti, D. Patrono, E. Prosperi, S. Puglisi, M. Ramera, M. Ravaioli, A. Rocca, A. Ruzzente, L. Sacco, G. Scialantrone, M. Serenari, D. Tamburrino, B. Tatani, R. Troisi, L. Veneroni, M. Vivarelli, M. Zanello, G. Zanus, C.Z. Caterina, A. Zironda. - In: UPDATES IN SURGERY. - ISSN 2038-131X. - 76:3(2024 Jun), pp. 923-932. [10.1007/s13304-024-01836-0]

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey

V. Mazzaferro;
2024

Abstract

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons' use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67-100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5-20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1-50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.
Drainage; Pancreatectomy; Questionnaire; Regret; Survey;
Settore MED/18 - Chirurgia Generale
giu-2024
25-apr-2024
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s13304-024-01836-0.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 706.31 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
706.31 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1078708
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact