Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

CLOSED VERSUS OPEN PASSIVE DRAINS IN EMERGENCY ABDOMINAL SURGERIES

Vishal Dubey

Abstract


Drains are used prophylacticaly in emergency abdominal surgeries for drainage of pus or collection left after peritoneal lavage given during the laparotomy procedure. Drains used in abdominal surgeries are of two types Active and Passive. Active drains are based on suction mechanism. Passive type drains are by means of difference in pressure and gravity. Passive drains are of two types- Closed and Open.  Closed drain is a simple sterile red rubber or polyvinyl chloride tube which is connected to outside container bag, i.e. closed on both the sides. While, open drain is a corrugated rubber or polyvinyl chloride not connected to bag but covered by sterile dressing outside. Closed drains are commonly used but they are blocked early and lead to collection of fluid in abdominal cavity. Purpose of our study was to compare these closed drains with open type having less problems of blockage.

 

Among the patients of clean contaminated wounds, moderate amount of  fluid collection was noted in ultrasound examination in pelvic cavity in 2 (11.1%) patients of Group A and 1(10%) patient of Group B. Surgical wound infection was more in patients of Group B (20%>11.1%). Signs of pelvic abscess found in one patient of Group A. In cases of contaminated and dirty wounds, ultrasound examination showed moderate amount of collection in 5 (13.8%) patients of Group A as compared to 1(5%) in Group B. Surgical wound infection was more in patients of Group B (25%>22.2%). Drain site infection was more in Group B (25%>8.33%). Signs of pelvic abscess found in 1 patient while high grade fever was found in 3 patients of Group A. On statistical analysis there was no significant difference in complications between the two drains except that of more drain site infection in open drain.

Keywords


Laparotomy, Abdominal surgery, Passive drains, Closed drains, Surgical wound infection, Closed versus open passive drains.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Broome AE, Hansson LC, and Tyger JF. (1983). “Efficiency of various types of drainage of the peritoneal cavity-an experimental study in man”, Acta Chir Scand, Vol.149, pp.53-55.

Buchler MW, and Friess H. (2006). “Evidence forward, drainage on retreat still we ignore and drain?”, Annals of Surgery, Vol.244(1), pp.8-9.

Memon MA, Memon B, Memon MI, and Donhue JH. (2002). “The uses and abuses of drains in abdominal surgery”, Hospital Medicine, London, Vol.63(5), pp.282-288.

Nora PF, Vanecko RM, and Bransfield JJ. (1972). “Prophylactic abdominal drains”, Arch Surg, Vol.105, pp.173-176.

Pai D, Sharma A, and Kanungo R, et al. (1999). “Role of abdominal drains in perforated duodenal ulcer patients: a prospective controlled study”, Aust N Z J Surg, Vol.69, pp.210-213.

Petrowsky H, Demartines N, and Rousson V, et al. (2004). “Evidence based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery; a systematic review and meta analysis”, Ann surg, Vol.240, pp.1074-1085.

Raves JJ, Slifkin M, and Diamond DL. (1984). “A bacteriologic study comparing closed suction and simple conduit drainage”, Am J Surg, Vol.148, pp.618-620.

Schein M. (2008). “To drain or not to drain? The role of drainage in the contaminated and infected abdomen: an International and personal perspective”, World J Surg, Vol.32, pp.312-321.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Send mail to ijsss@ijsss.com with questions or comments about this web site. 

International Journal of Surgery and Surgical Sciences, All rights reserved.