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":null,"pages":null},"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. Musinous cystic neoplasia mimicking hydatid cyst in the liver: Two rare cases Comments on ‘Percutaneous gas decompression can ease endoscopic derotation in sigmoid volvulus’ Pathological complete response and associated factors in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A retrospective study Effect of silver colloid dressing over conventional dressings in diabetic foot ulcer: A prospective study
×
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