Omission of intraoperative drain placement during robotic partial nephrectomy and robotic radical prostatectomy is safe: an analysis of 18,000 patients.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY World Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1007/s00345-024-05320-7
John Pfail, Jake Drobner, Alain Kaldany, Kevin Chua, Benjamin Lichtbroun, Rachel Passarelli, Hiren Patel, Arnav Srivastava, David Golombos, Thomas L Jang, Vignesh T Packiam, Saum Ghodoussipour
{"title":"Omission of intraoperative drain placement during robotic partial nephrectomy and robotic radical prostatectomy is safe: an analysis of 18,000 patients.","authors":"John Pfail, Jake Drobner, Alain Kaldany, Kevin Chua, Benjamin Lichtbroun, Rachel Passarelli, Hiren Patel, Arnav Srivastava, David Golombos, Thomas L Jang, Vignesh T Packiam, Saum Ghodoussipour","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05320-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Placement of a drain during robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is standard practice for many urologists and can aid in assessment and management of complications such as urine leak, lymphocele, or bleeding. However, drain placement can cause discomfort and delay patient discharge, with questionable benefit. We aim to assess the correlation between drain placement with post operative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The NSQIP targeted database was queried for patients who underwent RAPN or RARP from 2019 to 2021. Our primary outcomes included 30-day complication rates stratified by intraoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included procedure-specific complications, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions. Multivariable regression analyses, with Bonferroni correction, were performed for each post-operative complication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4738 and 13,948 patients who underwent RAPN and RARP, respectively. Drains were not placed in 2258 (47.7%) and 6700 (48%) patients, respectively. On adjusted multivariable analysis in the RAPN cohort, omission of drain placement was associated with decreased LOS (β -0.45; 99.58% CI [-0.59, -0.32]) but no difference in overall complication rates. After adjusted analysis in the RARP cohort, omission of drain placement was associated with decreased risk of any complication (OR 0.73 [0.62-0.87]), infectious complication (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89]), and LOS (β -0.30 [-0.37, -0.24]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using a large contemporary database, this study demonstrates that omission of drains during RAPN and RARP was safe without increased risk of postoperative complications. Despite inherent selection bias in this cohort, our data suggests that routine drain placement is not necessary for these procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"42 1","pages":"601"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522192/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05320-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Placement of a drain during robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is standard practice for many urologists and can aid in assessment and management of complications such as urine leak, lymphocele, or bleeding. However, drain placement can cause discomfort and delay patient discharge, with questionable benefit. We aim to assess the correlation between drain placement with post operative complications.

Methods: The NSQIP targeted database was queried for patients who underwent RAPN or RARP from 2019 to 2021. Our primary outcomes included 30-day complication rates stratified by intraoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included procedure-specific complications, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions. Multivariable regression analyses, with Bonferroni correction, were performed for each post-operative complication.

Results: We identified 4738 and 13,948 patients who underwent RAPN and RARP, respectively. Drains were not placed in 2258 (47.7%) and 6700 (48%) patients, respectively. On adjusted multivariable analysis in the RAPN cohort, omission of drain placement was associated with decreased LOS (β -0.45; 99.58% CI [-0.59, -0.32]) but no difference in overall complication rates. After adjusted analysis in the RARP cohort, omission of drain placement was associated with decreased risk of any complication (OR 0.73 [0.62-0.87]), infectious complication (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89]), and LOS (β -0.30 [-0.37, -0.24]).

Conclusions: Using a large contemporary database, this study demonstrates that omission of drains during RAPN and RARP was safe without increased risk of postoperative complications. Despite inherent selection bias in this cohort, our data suggests that routine drain placement is not necessary for these procedures.

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
在机器人肾部分切除术和机器人前列腺癌根治术中省去术中放置引流管是安全的:对18000名患者的分析。
目的:在机器人辅助肾部分切除术(RAPN)和机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术(RARP)中放置引流管是许多泌尿科医生的标准做法,有助于评估和处理尿漏、淋巴肿大或出血等并发症。然而,放置引流管可能会引起不适并延迟患者出院,其益处也值得怀疑。我们旨在评估引流管放置与术后并发症之间的相关性:方法:我们在 NSQIP 目标数据库中查询了 2019 年至 2021 年期间接受 RAPN 或 RARP 手术的患者。我们的主要结果包括根据术中引流管放置情况分层的 30 天并发症发生率。次要结果包括手术特异性并发症、住院时间(LOS)和再入院率。针对每种术后并发症进行了多变量回归分析,并进行了 Bonferroni 校正:我们发现分别有 4738 名和 13948 名患者接受了 RAPN 和 RARP 手术。分别有 2258 例(47.7%)和 6700 例(48%)患者未放置引流管。在对RAPN队列进行调整后的多变量分析后发现,未放置引流管与缩短LOS有关(β -0.45;99.58% CI [-0.59, -0.32]),但总体并发症发生率没有差异。在对RARP队列进行调整分析后发现,不放置引流管与任何并发症(OR 0.73 [0.62-0.87])、感染性并发症(OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89])和LOS(β -0.30 [-0.37,-0.24])风险的降低有关:本研究利用大型当代数据库证明,在 RAPN 和 RARP 术中不使用引流管是安全的,不会增加术后并发症的风险。尽管该队列存在固有的选择偏差,但我们的数据表明,在这些手术中不需要常规放置引流管。
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
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
期刊最新文献
Can suction technology be a potential game changer that reshapes pediatric endourological interventions? Results from a scoping review. Does race and insurance status play a role in high-grade renal trauma in the pediatric population? - An analysis from the traumatic renal injury collaborative in kids (TRICK) consortium. Risk factors for kidney cancer and socio-occupational category: significant impact of chlorinated solvents (UroCCR 111). RAM2: animal study for safety evaluation of the new artificial urinary sphincter uroactive on a castrated RAM model. Correction: Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced and clinically positive nodes Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma treated with Nephroureterectomy: real-world data from the ROBUUST 2.0 Registry.
×
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