TY - JOUR
T1 - To drain or not to drain
T2 - intraperitoneal closed-suction drainage placement during cesarean delivery
AU - Drukker, Lior
AU - Shen, Ori
AU - Rottenstreich, Misgav
AU - Farkash, Rivka
AU - Samueloff, Arnon
AU - Sela, Hen Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Introduction: Intraperitoneal closed suction drains are occasionally placed during cesarean delivery. This study aims to ascertain the prevalence, associated factors, outcome, and risks of intraperitoneal closed-suction drain placed during cesarean delivery. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing cesarean delivery in a single center from 2005 to 2015. We excluded cases of cesarean hysterectomy and women who had hollow viscus injury. Cesarean deliveries were categorized into two groups based on intraperitoneal drain use: drain + and drain−.The study aims were to describe: (1) drain use prevalence; (2) factors associated with drain use; (3) interval to relaparotomy due to intraperitoneal bleeding and outcome of drain use; and (4) unique drain-related adverse outcome. Statistics: univariate, multivariable, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 581 (99.3%) cesareans were included. An intraperitoneal drain was used in 1264 (7.6%) cesareans, ranging from 4.4 to 18.8% in women with no and four or more cesareans, respectively. Comparing the drain + and drain- groups, multivariable analysis revealed that the factors associated with the use of a drain included (OR, 95%CI) uterine rupture (5.14, 3.15–8.38), intrapartum fever (2.65, 1.87–3.75), previous cesareans (2.29, 2.00–2.68), second-stage cesarean (2.21, 1.64–2.74), preterm delivery (1.89, 1.63–2.19), spontaneous onset of labor (1.42, 1.24–1.63), and maternal age greater than 35 years (1.35, 1.19–1.54); p <.001 for all. Of the forty-four women (0.27%) who underwent relaparotomy for intraperitoneal bleeding, there were fourteen in the intraperitoneal drain group. Inverse probability treatment weighting analysis demonstrated that median (interquartile range) times (hours) to relaparotomy were significantly shorter in the drain + group [3.5 (3.3–10.0) versus 12.5 (7.9–15.6), p <.001] and that puerperal fever incidence was higher in the drain + group (2.2 vs. 1.4%, p <.001). The incidence of relaparotomy to remove a retained drain or drain fragment was 0.48% (6/1264). Conclusions: Drain use in our study resulted in a shorter time to relaparotomy for intraperitoneal hemorrhage. However, it was associated with a higher risk for puerperal fever and a 0.5% risk for relaparotomy for removal of the drain.KEY MESSAGE Intraperitoneal drain placed during cesarean is used more often in complicated surgeries and is associated with a shorter interval to relaparotomy.
AB - Introduction: Intraperitoneal closed suction drains are occasionally placed during cesarean delivery. This study aims to ascertain the prevalence, associated factors, outcome, and risks of intraperitoneal closed-suction drain placed during cesarean delivery. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing cesarean delivery in a single center from 2005 to 2015. We excluded cases of cesarean hysterectomy and women who had hollow viscus injury. Cesarean deliveries were categorized into two groups based on intraperitoneal drain use: drain + and drain−.The study aims were to describe: (1) drain use prevalence; (2) factors associated with drain use; (3) interval to relaparotomy due to intraperitoneal bleeding and outcome of drain use; and (4) unique drain-related adverse outcome. Statistics: univariate, multivariable, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 581 (99.3%) cesareans were included. An intraperitoneal drain was used in 1264 (7.6%) cesareans, ranging from 4.4 to 18.8% in women with no and four or more cesareans, respectively. Comparing the drain + and drain- groups, multivariable analysis revealed that the factors associated with the use of a drain included (OR, 95%CI) uterine rupture (5.14, 3.15–8.38), intrapartum fever (2.65, 1.87–3.75), previous cesareans (2.29, 2.00–2.68), second-stage cesarean (2.21, 1.64–2.74), preterm delivery (1.89, 1.63–2.19), spontaneous onset of labor (1.42, 1.24–1.63), and maternal age greater than 35 years (1.35, 1.19–1.54); p <.001 for all. Of the forty-four women (0.27%) who underwent relaparotomy for intraperitoneal bleeding, there were fourteen in the intraperitoneal drain group. Inverse probability treatment weighting analysis demonstrated that median (interquartile range) times (hours) to relaparotomy were significantly shorter in the drain + group [3.5 (3.3–10.0) versus 12.5 (7.9–15.6), p <.001] and that puerperal fever incidence was higher in the drain + group (2.2 vs. 1.4%, p <.001). The incidence of relaparotomy to remove a retained drain or drain fragment was 0.48% (6/1264). Conclusions: Drain use in our study resulted in a shorter time to relaparotomy for intraperitoneal hemorrhage. However, it was associated with a higher risk for puerperal fever and a 0.5% risk for relaparotomy for removal of the drain.KEY MESSAGE Intraperitoneal drain placed during cesarean is used more often in complicated surgeries and is associated with a shorter interval to relaparotomy.
KW - Cesarean section
KW - drain
KW - post-partum hemorrhage
KW - relaparotomy
KW - surgical complications
KW - surgical technique
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074359185&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14767058.2019.1677591
DO - 10.1080/14767058.2019.1677591
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 31619122
AN - SCOPUS:85074359185
SN - 1476-7058
VL - 34
SP - 3021
EP - 3028
JO - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
JF - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
IS - 18
ER -