Closed suction drainage to prevent postoperative complications after parotidectomy: a systematic review

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of closed suction drainage for prevention of postoperative complications after parotidectomy. METHODS: Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, Open Sigle, CBM, VIP and Wanfang database were searched electronically from the date of their establishment to May 10,2013. Hand-searching covering 19 relevant Chinese journals were also performed, and the literature of randomized controlled trials comparing closed suction drainage and open drainage for prevention of postoperative complications after parotidectomy were included. Risk of bias assessment, which was suggested by Cochrane handbook for systematic reviewers of intervention review, and data extraction of included studies were delivered by two reviewers in duplicate; and meta analysis was performed with Revman5.2 software. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials were included. All studies had unclear risk of bias. When compared with open drainage, closed suction drainage showed a significant advantage on reducing postoperative complications (salivary fistula/effusion, edema ) after parotidectomy; it also improved clinical comprehensive effect and patients’ quality of life (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: To a certain extent, closed suction drainage has better efficacy and safety than controls in preventing postoperative complications after parotidectomy. However, as the quality of some included studies is limited, more randomized controlled trials are needed to reinforce the conclusion.

Key words: Closed suction drainage, Parotidectomy, Meta analysis, Systematic review

CLC Number:

R782.05

SUN Jun, LI Chun-jie, LI Bo, GAO Qing-hong, MEN Yi, Li Long-jiang. Closed suction drainage to prevent postoperative complications after parotidectomy: a systematic review[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2014, 23(3): 362-366.

References

[1] 邱蔚六. 口腔颌面外科学 [M]. 第6版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2011: 290.
[2] Mofle PJ, Urquhart AC. Superficial parotidectomy and postoperative drainage [J]. Clin Med Res, 2008, 6(2): 68-71.
[3] Amir I, Morar P, Belloso A. Postoperative drainage in head and neck surgery [J]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2010, 92(8): 651-654.
[4] Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [M]. 5th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2011.
[5] 刘凤桐, 杨学财, 尚伟, 等. 负压引流在腮腺手术中的应用 [J]. 现代口腔医学杂志, 2009, 23(5): 486-488.
[6] 彭歆, 俞光岩, 黄敏娴, 等. 负压引流与腮腺术后涎瘘 [J]. 现代口腔医学杂志, 2001, 15(6): 455-456.
[7] 李爽, 张海钟, 布静秋, 等. 负压引流方式的改进与腮腺手术后美容效果 [J]. 中国美容医学, 2009, 18(10): 1456-1457.
[8] 李守宏, 蓝圆育, 王子奇. 腮腺术后负压引流与橡皮片加压包扎引流的对比研究 [J]. 口腔医学纵横, 2000, 16(4): 316.
[9] 赵科, 黄光磊, 罗洪. 腮腺术后不同引流方式对伤口愈合的效果观察 [J]. 贵州医药, 2004, 28(6): 525-526.
[10] 陈雅,戴杰,林雅琴.腮腺切除术后负压引流探讨与护理观察 [J]. 中国现代医生, 2010, 48(36): 162, 183.
[11] 马新亮,朱守莉, 韩立显. 持续负压引流与橡皮片加压包扎在腮腺手术中的对比观察[J]. 蚌埠医学院学报,2010,35(3):269-270.
[12] 梁利荣, 赵士芳, 杨为江, 等. 腮腺术后负压引流与正压引流的对比研究 [J]. 口腔医学, 2003, 23(6): 356-357.
[13] 程庐堂, 陆国平, 钟庐云. 腮腺肿瘤切除术后两种引流方法的比较 [J]. 江西医药, 2007, 42(5): 444.
[14] 毕文娟, 王东, 彭诚, 等. 腮腺术后负压引流和橡皮条引流的相关研究[J].中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版),2010,4(4):369-371.
[15] 王磊, 吕改玲, 杨丽超. 负压引流结合弹性加压包扎预防腮腺术后涎瘘 [J]. 医学信息, 2005, 18(8): 999.
[16] Anclair PL, Goode PK, Ellis GL. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of intraoral salivary glands. Evaluation and application of grading criteria in 143 cases [J]. Cancer, 1992, 69(8): 2021-2030.
[17] Mandrekar JN, Mandrekar SJ. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of published studies: an overview and best practices [J]. J Thorac Oncol, 2011, 6(8): 1301-1303.