A retrospectic analysis about the usefulness of the prophilaptic pelvic drain after rectal resection
Annali Italiani di Chirurgia, ISSN: 2239-253X, Vol: 71, Issue: 3, Page: 367-372
2000
- 9Citations
- 3Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
Altough the use of drains is common in clinical practice, its real role in the prophilaxis and therapy of postoperative complications is still not clear. In the literature we can find both supporters of drains, and many opponents who consider their use unnecessary and sometimes even dangerous. In fact, during new experimental and clinical studies, it was impossible to determine the usefulness of prophilactic abdominal drain, at least in the case of colo-rectal anastomosis, it has been demonstrated that use of drains limits the risks of an anastomotic leakage but, in some cases, the same drains could be the cause of some of the complications that should be avoided. Although there is a considerable theoretical and practical evidences in favour of drainage, the dispute about "to drain or not to drain" the peritoneal cavity after elective colo-rectal surgery remains open. This retrospective study made on 150 patients operated on elective surgery for rectal cancer demonstrates that prophilactic drain does not significantly influence the general rate of leakage (3.15% for group A and 5.45% for group B, p > 0.1); in two of the three fistulas in patients with drains, the drains have permitted the diagnosis, but have not permitted the reduction of the number of operations for fistulas. © 2000 GEM s.r.l./Capelli Editore.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know