Clinical and cost outcomes of a polyethylene glycol (PEG)-coated patch versus drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between breast cancer patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection with postoperative management using a polyethylene glycol-coated patch versus axillary drainage. The direct costs associated with both postoperative management strategies were also evaluated. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT in women with breast cancer who underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04487561). Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either drainage or a polyethylene glycol-coated patch as postoperative management. The primary endpoints were the need for an emergency department visit for any event related to the surgery and the rate of seroma development. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were included , 115 in the patch group (50.7 per cent) and 112 (29.4 per cent ) in the drainage group. The incidence of emergency department visits was significantly greater for patients with drainage versus a polyethylene glycol-coated patch (incidence rate difference 26.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 14.5 to 37.7 per cent; P < 0.001). Conversely, the seroma rate was significantly higher in the polyethylene glycol-coated patch group (incidence rate difference 22.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 6.7 to 38.9 per cent; P < 0.0055). Compared with drainage, using a polyethylene glycol-coated patch resulted in cost savings of €100.41 per patient. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis found that drainage was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7594.4 for no need for hospital admission and €491.7 for no need for an emergency department visit. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients who received drainage after axillary lymph node dissection, the use of a polyethylene glycol-coated patch resulted in a higher rate of seroma, but a lower number of postoperative outpatient or emergency department visits and thus a reduction in overall costs.

[Cecal perforation secondary to surgical drainage. A case report]. / Perforación de ciego secundaria a drenaje quirúrgico. Reporte de un caso.

BACKGROUND: The use of surgical drains in abdominal surgery is still today controversial. While accepting their role in certain circumstances, their systematic use advocated by other schools, is not fully accepted. We present a case of secondary blind drilling drainage tube perineum following an abdominoperineal amputation of the rectum that forced a surgical repair in a neoplastic patient CLINICAL CASE: This is a patient who underwent abdomino perineal resection for rectal neoplasia. It was decided to leave a silicone-type drain tube for perineum and in late postoperative he presented cecum perforation due to traumatic introduction thereof into the cecal light, which forced his reoperation and surgical repair. DISCUSSION: There is a tendency to use less and less drains in abdominal surgery, although there are certain occasions when it becomes inevitable. On the other hand it entails morbidity associated with its use that significantly complicates and delays the recovery of the patient. It is accepted that is not useful to prevent the occurrence of fistulas, although it contributes to its early detection. CONCLUSIONS: The cecal perforation due to drain is a rare complication which must always be taken into account, and that perhaps could be avoided by using soft and less rigid drains.