Meta-analysis of drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

23Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: An electronic search of Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to June 2013 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The odds ratio for qualitative variables and standardized mean difference for continuous variables were calculated. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1939 patients randomized to a drain (960) versus no drain (979). The morbidity rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.10; P =.003). The wound infection rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 4.51; P

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Picchio, M., Lucarelli, P., Di Filippo, A., De Angelis, F., Stipa, F., & Spaziani, E. (2015). Meta-analysis of drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00242

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free