To drain or not to drain: intraperitoneal closed-suction drainage placement during cesarean delivery

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Introduction: Intraperitoneal closed suction drains are occasionally placed during cesarean delivery. This study aims to ascertain the prevalence, associated factors, outcome, and risks of intraperitoneal closed-suction drain placed during cesarean delivery. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing cesarean delivery in a single center from 2005 to 2015. We excluded cases of cesarean hysterectomy and women who had hollow viscus injury. Cesarean deliveries were categorized into two groups based on intraperitoneal drain use: drain + and drain−.The study aims were to describe: (1) drain use prevalence; (2) factors associated with drain use; (3) interval to relaparotomy due to intraperitoneal bleeding and outcome of drain use; and (4) unique drain-related adverse outcome. Statistics: univariate, multivariable, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 581 (99.3%) cesareans were included. An intraperitoneal drain was used in 1264 (7.6%) cesareans, ranging from 4.4 to 18.8% in women with no and four or more cesareans, respectively. Comparing the drain + and drain- groups, multivariable analysis revealed that the factors associated with the use of a drain included (OR, 95%CI) uterine rupture (5.14, 3.15–8.38), intrapartum fever (2.65, 1.87–3.75), previous cesareans (2.29, 2.00–2.68), second-stage cesarean (2.21, 1.64–2.74), preterm delivery (1.89, 1.63–2.19), spontaneous onset of labor (1.42, 1.24–1.63), and maternal age greater than 35 years (1.35, 1.19–1.54); p < .001 for all. Of the forty-four women (0.27%) who underwent relaparotomy for intraperitoneal bleeding, there were fourteen in the intraperitoneal drain group. Inverse probability treatment weighting analysis demonstrated that median (interquartile range) times (hours) to relaparotomy were significantly shorter in the drain + group [3.5 (3.3–10.0) versus 12.5 (7.9–15.6), p < .001] and that puerperal fever incidence was higher in the drain + group (2.2 vs. 1.4%, p < .001). The incidence of relaparotomy to remove a retained drain or drain fragment was 0.48% (6/1264). Conclusions: Drain use in our study resulted in a shorter time to relaparotomy for intraperitoneal hemorrhage. However, it was associated with a higher risk for puerperal fever and a 0.5% risk for relaparotomy for removal of the drain.

This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit: