Objectives The aim of this retrospective case control study is to compare the efficacy of vacuum accessorized drain system to the siliconized penroze drain for the groin.
Methods From 2011 to 2019, 66 of 120 patient from the Outpatient Clinic of Gynecological Oncology Cancer Institute (ICESP) with advanced vulvar cancer were submitted to groin lymphadenectomy. The patients were divided in two groups: a) siliconized penrose drain (case group), b) vaccum accessorized 4,8 mm drain (control group). Each patient had the groin dissection and the drain systen exteriorized by a medial common incision on the pubis, linked to a colostomy bag. The efficacy of the drainage was determinate by the following variables: infection, dehiscence, bleeding, lymphocele and day of hospitalization.
Results There was no diference in total number of complications (31,4% case vs 35,4% control). Specific complications such infection (28,6% case vs 9,67% control), bleeding (0% case vs 3,22% control), dehiscence (0% case vs 6,45%control) and lymphocele (8,5% case vs 19,3% control) were also not statistically diferent. Rehospitalization, however, was signficantly diferent (0% case vs 22,5% control, p<0.0001), as tumor size (39,46 mm case vs 50,34mm control, p=0.01).
Conclusions Although the complications rate were similar, vacuum accessorized drain systen presented more index of lymphoceles, dehiscence and hospitalization days than siliconized penrose drain.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.