Single vs. double drain in modified radical mastectomy: A randomized controlled trial

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY Turkish Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.5666
Salma Khan, Momna Khan, Asma Wasim
{"title":"Single vs. double drain in modified radical mastectomy: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Salma Khan, Momna Khan, Asma Wasim","doi":"10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.5666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: It was aimed to test the hypothesis that the use of a double drain results in less seroma formation, duration of the hospital stay, surgical site infection (SSI), postoperative pain, hematoma, flap necrosis compared to a single drain in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Material and Methods: This parallel-group, single-institution randomized controlled trial was conducted at the department of surgery of our institute between April 2015 and July 2018. Women undergoing modified radical mastectomy were randomly allocated to either a single drain (n= 98) or double drain (n= 98). Results: Both groups were comparable for baseline variables such as age, co-morbidity, BMI, and tumor characteristics. The variables of single drain yielded no better outcomes compared to double drain with estimated blood loss (101.67 ± 25.14 vs.101.67 ± 24.40, p> 0.001), drain volume (898.81 ± 116.42 vs 803.97 ± 103.22 mL, p> 0.001), duration of surgery in minutes (103.19 ± 15.96, 103.19 ± 15.93) and seroma formation (13.4% vs 6.1%, p= 0.082). However, single drain yielded less postoperative pain (mean 2.5 ± 0.70 vs 5.22 ± 5.10, p< 0.000). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, single drain was associated with a lower risk of significant postoperative pain [adjusted relative risk 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.070-0.25)] and overall complications [adjusted relative risk 0.47, (95% CI 0.26-0.86)]. On multiple linear regression, the duration of drains in the single drain group was 0.01 days less than double drain (r2= 0.00, b= 0.388, p> 0.001). Conclusion: The use of a single drain significantly reduces postoperative discomfort and pain while demonstrating similar morbidity to the patient with two drains. We thus recommend preferential use of a single drain in modified radical mastectomy (NCT02411617).","PeriodicalId":23374,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.5666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: It was aimed to test the hypothesis that the use of a double drain results in less seroma formation, duration of the hospital stay, surgical site infection (SSI), postoperative pain, hematoma, flap necrosis compared to a single drain in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Material and Methods: This parallel-group, single-institution randomized controlled trial was conducted at the department of surgery of our institute between April 2015 and July 2018. Women undergoing modified radical mastectomy were randomly allocated to either a single drain (n= 98) or double drain (n= 98). Results: Both groups were comparable for baseline variables such as age, co-morbidity, BMI, and tumor characteristics. The variables of single drain yielded no better outcomes compared to double drain with estimated blood loss (101.67 ± 25.14 vs.101.67 ± 24.40, p> 0.001), drain volume (898.81 ± 116.42 vs 803.97 ± 103.22 mL, p> 0.001), duration of surgery in minutes (103.19 ± 15.96, 103.19 ± 15.93) and seroma formation (13.4% vs 6.1%, p= 0.082). However, single drain yielded less postoperative pain (mean 2.5 ± 0.70 vs 5.22 ± 5.10, p< 0.000). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, single drain was associated with a lower risk of significant postoperative pain [adjusted relative risk 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.070-0.25)] and overall complications [adjusted relative risk 0.47, (95% CI 0.26-0.86)]. On multiple linear regression, the duration of drains in the single drain group was 0.01 days less than double drain (r2= 0.00, b= 0.388, p> 0.001). Conclusion: The use of a single drain significantly reduces postoperative discomfort and pain while demonstrating similar morbidity to the patient with two drains. We thus recommend preferential use of a single drain in modified radical mastectomy (NCT02411617).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改良乳房根治术中单引流与双引流:一项随机对照试验
目的:本研究旨在验证在改良乳房根治术患者中,与单管引流相比,双管引流可减少血肿形成、住院时间、手术部位感染(SSI)、术后疼痛、血肿、皮瓣坏死。材料与方法:本研究于2015年4月至2018年7月在我院外科进行,为平行组、单机构随机对照试验。接受改良根治性乳房切除术的妇女被随机分配到单引流组(n= 98)或双引流组(n= 98)。结果:两组在年龄、合并症、BMI和肿瘤特征等基线变量上具有可比性。单次引流与双次引流的估计出血量(101.67±25.14 vs 101.67±24.40,p>0.001),排液量(898.81±116.42 vs 803.97±103.22 mL, p>0.001)、手术时间(103.19±15.96分钟,103.19±15.93分钟)和血肿形成(13.4% vs 6.1%, p= 0.082)。然而,单次引流术后疼痛较少(平均2.5±0.70 vs 5.22±5.10,p<0.000)。在多变量Cox回归分析中,单次引流与术后明显疼痛的风险较低相关[校正相对风险0.14(95%可信区间(CI) 0.070-0.25)]和总体并发症[校正相对风险0.47,(95% CI 0.26-0.86)]。经多元线性回归分析,单引流组引流时间比双引流组短0.01 d (r2= 0.00, b= 0.388, p>0.001)。结论:使用单根引流管可显著减少术后不适和疼痛,但其发病率与使用双根引流管相似。因此,我们建议在改良乳房根治术中优先使用单管引流术(NCT02411617)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK. How to do it: Splenic flexure mobilisation via medial trans-mesocolic approach. Translation and validation of Indonesian hemorrhoidal disease symptom score (HDSS) and short health scale hemorrhoidal disease (SHSHD). FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK. Questionnaire survey of virtual reality experiences of digestive surgery at a rural academic institute: A pilot study for pre-surgical education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1