The drain game: abdominal drains for deep inferior epigastric perforator breast reconstruction.
Miranda BH., Amin K., Chana JS.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 78, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2014) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2014)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- 78
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 24726562
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.03.020
Abstract (original English)
The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is often preferred for breast reconstruction as it allows for autologous reconstruction with less donor site morbidity versus transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction. Our group has presented and published data for the duration of donor site back drain use in latissimus dorsi (LD) flap breast reconstruction due to insufficient evidence and a requirement for further investigation in the literature; this evidence is still lacking for DIEP reconstruction. To compare inpatient hospital stay, drainage parameters and donor-site complications associated with closed suction abdominal drain removal by post-operative day (POD) 3 regardless of output (early group), with removal after POD 3 where instructions were by drainage volume/24 h±output consistency (late group), in post-mastectomy DIEP reconstruction donor sites. A retrospective review of DIEP breast reconstructions, between January 2011 and July 2012, was undertaken to facilitate 1 year minimum follow-up per patient. Of 78 patients who underwent DIEP breast reconstructions, 74 hospital records contained complete documentation. There were 41 patients in the late, and 33 in the early removal group; both groups were matched for age and number of donor site drains (2 per patient). Mean drain removal day (4.32±0.10 days vs. 2.87±0.06 days, p<0.0001), total d
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.