Obstetrics & Gynecology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;111:1293-1297
© 2008 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chan, K.
Right arrow Articles by Abbott, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chan, K.
Right arrow Articles by Abbott, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Gynecologic surgery
Right arrow Ultrasound/doppler

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Residual Pelvic Fluid Using Two Types of Drains at Laparoscopy

A Randomized Controlled Trial

Karen Chan1, Alec Welsh, FRANZCOG, PhD2 and Jason Abbott, FRANZCOG, PhD2

From the 1University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and the 2Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia, and the University of New South Wales, School of Women and Children’s Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the estimated residual pelvic fluid volume in women receiving suction or nonsuction drains after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery using transvaginal ultrasonography.

METHODS: In this randomized comparative study of women undergoing a laparoscopic surgical procedure for benign gynecologic conditions, women requiring postoperative drainage were assigned to receive either a suction or a nonsuction drain. Immediately before drain removal, women had transvaginal ultrasonography and estimation of the residual fluid volume using the formula {pi}/6xD1xD2xD3, where D1 and D2 were obtained in the sagittal plane and D3 in the coronal plane.

RESULTS: Sixty-nine women consented to the study; 51 received a drain, and 47 complete data sets were obtained. The two groups had similar demography, and no complications were reported intraoperatively or postoperatively. The median volume of fluid drained postoperatively was not significantly different: 170.0 mL (range 5–1,370 mL) for nonsuction and 160.0 mL (range 10–550 mL) for suction. The median residual fluid volume estimated in the pelvis postoperatively by transvaginal ultrasonography was 0.24 mL (interquartile range 0.00–2.45) in the nonsuction group versus 1.91 mL (interquartile range 0.32–7.72) in the suction group. This was statistically different (z=–2.10, P=.04) for nonsuction versus suction drains.

CONCLUSION: There is a statistically reduced residual fluid volume using nonsuction drains after laparoscopic surgery. However, with both types of drain, these residual volumes are well below what is considered physiologic, and there is likely little clinical difference. Both nonsuction and suction drains are equally effective in removing fluid from the peritoneal cavity after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, www.anzctr.org.au, ACTRN12608000109303

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.