Closed-suction versus Penrose drainage after cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomized evaluation

Area of Science:

• Surgical Innovation
• Minimally Invasive Surgery
• Postoperative Care

Background:

• Cholecystectomy is a common surgical procedure.
• Drainage management after cholecystectomy is crucial for patient recovery.
• Open, passive drainage using Penrose drains has been a traditional method.

Purpose of the Study:

• To prospectively compare the efficacy of closed-suction drainage versus open, passive drainage (Penrose drains) in patients undergoing cholecystectomy.
• To evaluate key postoperative outcomes including drainage duration, volume, fever, leukocyte count, wound infection, and drain site tenderness.

Main Methods:

• A prospective randomized controlled trial involving 128 patients undergoing cholecystectomy.
• Patients were allocated to either closed-suction drains (Group I, n=67) or Penrose drains (Group II, n=61).
• Preoperative clinical parameters were assessed for similarity between groups.

Main Results:

• Closed-suction drainage group showed a shorter duration of drainage (3.3 vs. 4.1 days, p<0.01) and lesser drainage volume in the first 48 hours (78 vs. 132 ml, p<0.001).
• Reduced incidence of fever and lower postoperative leukocyte counts were observed in the closed-suction group.
• The closed-suction group exhibited a trend towards lower wound infection rates and significantly less drain site tenderness (p<0.05).

Conclusions:

• Closed-suction drainage is superior to open, passive drainage (Penrose drains) following cholecystectomy.
• Closed-suction drains lead to improved patient recovery with fewer complications and less discomfort.
• This study supports the adoption of closed-suction drainage systems in cholecystectomy procedures.