Extraperitoneal tunneling reduces intraperitoneal drain displacement in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center before-and-after comparative study

Background Currently, many surgeons place a prophylactic drain in the abdominal or pelvic cavity after colorectal anastomosis as a conventional treatment.However, some trials have demonstrated that this procedure may not be beneficial to the patients.Objective To determine whether prophylactic placement of a drain in colorectal anastomosis can reduce postoperative complications.Methods We systematically searched all the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine use of drainage to non-drainage regimes after colorectal anastomosis, using the terms Bcolorectal^or Bcolon/colonic^or Brectum/rectal^and Banastomo*^and Bdrain or drainage.^Referencelists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened.Primary outcome measures were clinical and radiological anastomotic leakage.Secondary outcome measures included mortality, wound infection, re-operation, and respiratory complications.We assessed the eligible studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.Two authors independently extracted data.Results Eleven RCTs were included (1803 patients in total, 939 patients in the drain group and 864 patients in the no drain group).Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant differences between the drain group and the no drain group in (1) overall anastomotic leakage (relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.62,P = 0.47), (2) clinical anastomotic leakage (RR = 1.39, 95 % CI 0.80-2.39,P = 0.24), (3) radiologic anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.56-1.51,P = 0.74), ( 4) mortality (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI 0.57-1.55,P = 0.81), (5) wound infection (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI 0.84-1.69,P = 0.34), (6) re-operation (RR = 1.18, 95 % CI 0.75-1.85,P = 0.47), and (7) respiratory complications (RR = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.55-1.23,P = 0.34).Conclusions Routine use of prophylactic drainage in colorectal anastomosis does not benefit in decreasing postoperative complications.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Coloproctology
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.01536.0219
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Extraperitoneal tunneling reduces intraperitoneal drain displacement in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center before-and-after comparative study

Hong‐min Ahn, Heung‐Kwon Oh, Sung‐Bum Kang, Mi Jeong Choi et al.
Annals of Coloproctology
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
article

Extraperitoneal tunneling reduces intraperitoneal drain displacement in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center before-and-after comparative study

Hong‐min Ahn, Heung‐Kwon Oh, Sung‐Bum Kang, Mi Jeong Choi, Min Hyeong Jo, Duck-Woo Kim, Kyong-Min Kang
article en

Abstract

Background Currently, many surgeons place a prophylactic drain in the abdominal or pelvic cavity after colorectal anastomosis as a conventional treatment.However, some trials have demonstrated that this procedure may not be beneficial to the patients.Objective To determine whether prophylactic placement of a drain in colorectal anastomosis can reduce postoperative complications.Methods We systematically searched all the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine use of drainage to non-drainage regimes after colorectal anastomosis, using the terms Bcolorectal^or Bcolon/colonic^or Brectum/rectal^and Banastomo*^and Bdrain or drainage.^Referencelists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened.Primary outcome measures were clinical and radiological anastomotic leakage.Secondary outcome measures included mortality, wound infection, re-operation, and respiratory complications.We assessed the eligible studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.Two authors independently extracted data.Results Eleven RCTs were included (1803 patients in total, 939 patients in the drain group and 864 patients in the no drain group).Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant differences between the drain group and the no drain group in (1) overall anastomotic leakage (relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.62,P = 0.47), (2) clinical anastomotic leakage (RR = 1.39, 95 % CI 0.80-2.39,P = 0.24), (3) radiologic anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.56-1.51,P = 0.74), ( 4) mortality (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI 0.57-1.55,P = 0.81), (5) wound infection (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI 0.84-1.69,P = 0.34), (6) re-operation (RR = 1.18, 95 % CI 0.75-1.85,P = 0.47), and (7) respiratory complications (RR = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.55-1.23,P = 0.34).Conclusions Routine use of prophylactic drainage in colorectal anastomosis does not benefit in decreasing postoperative complications.

Annals of Coloproctology
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (KR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.