+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Closed suction pelvic drainage after radical pelvic surgical procedures

Closed suction pelvic drainage after radical pelvic surgical procedures

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 155(4): 867-871

Thirty-four women had short-term, low-pressure, closed suction pelvic drainage after radical gynecologic surgical procedures. Mean collected fluid losses were significantly higher after radical hysterectomy (25.3 ml/kg) when compared with abdominal hysterectomy (10.7 ml/kg) and lymphadenectomy. There was no correlation between the volume of pelvic drainage and patient's age, patient's weight, duration of operation, or amount of blood loss. The fluid contents resembled serum and were rarely culture positive. Short-term (5-day) drainage was not associated with lymphocysts.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 004977975

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 3766643

DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(86)80041-2

Related references

Closed-suction drainage versus no drainage following radical abdominal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 57(2): 232-234, 1995

Suction drainage and "closed" system of bladder rinsing after radical pelvic surgery for uterine cervix cancer. Ginekologia Polska 39(3): 319-325, 1968

To drain or not to drain: a retrospective study of closed-suction drainage following radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecologic Oncology 51(1): 46-49, 1993

Closed suction drainage versus no drainage following pelvic lymphadenectomy for gynecological malignancies. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 11(2): 143-146, 2001

T-Tube Suction Drainage And Radical Pelvic Surgery. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 3(4): 178-181, 1963

Study on the possibility of bacterial infection through pelvic suction drainage via the vagina set after radical hysterectomy. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 39(10): 1749-1755, 1987

Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and various radical prostatectomy techniques: is pelvic drainage necessary?. Bju International 111(6): 963-969, 2013

Closed suction drainage versus closed simple drainage in the management of modified radical mastectomy wounds. South African Medical Journal 98(9): 712-715, 2009

A comparison between peritoneal sheathing of the ureters (Ohkawa technique) and retroperitoneal pelvic suction drainage in the prevention of ureteral damage during radical abdominal hysterectomy. Gynecologic Oncology 30(2): 222-227, 1988

The Role Of Closed Wound Negative Pressure Suction In Radical Surgical Procedures Of The Head And Neck. Laryngoscope 74: 70-94, 1964

Introduction of newer surgical prostheses and procedures in pelvic reconstruction: a challenge for pelvic surgeons. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 19(5): 461-463, 2007

Number and distribution of pelvic lymph nodes and effect of surgical pathologic factors on pelvic lymph node status in patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology 27(5): 463-466, 2006

The presacral space as a collector of fluid accumulations following rectal anastomosis: tolerance of rectal anastomosis to closed suction pelvic drainage. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 25(7): 680-684, 1982

Comparison between subcutaneous closed-suction drainage and conventional closed-suction drainage in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior instrumented spinal fusion: a randomized control trial. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 26(5): 256-259, 2014

The gore surgical membrane gore sm effectiveness as a pelvic lid to limit post radical pelvic surgery adhesions prpsa in a porcine model. Gynecologic Oncology 45(1): 87-88, 1992