JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Passive versus active drainage following neck dissection: a non-randomised prospective study.

Drainage is used following neck dissection to prevent the collection of fluid and aid healing. Active drains are thought to be more effective due to their ability to assist adherence of skin flaps and the minimisation of bacterial migration. There is controversy regarding the type of drain (active or passive) which should be used due to concerns about the potential for compromise of free flap pedicles with active drains. A prospective non-randomised study was undertaken to determine if there were any differences in neck healing following neck dissection between active and passive drains. A consecutive series of patients (the majority of whom had free flap reconstruction) were included over an 8 month period and were examined for delayed healing of the neck wound, flap loss, infection, haematoma and fistula. A total of 60 patients underwent 72 neck dissections during the study period (passive: 13, active: 47). The delayed healing rate in patients with passive drains was 54% compared with 6% for active drains (P < 0.001). This difference remained significant irrespective of surgeon grade, nodal status and whether or not a free flap was performed. There was no patient in whom the drain was thought to contribute to free flap loss. This non-randomised study has shown a significant difference in neck healing depending on the type of drain used following neck dissection. Despite the numerical differences between the groups the patients were relatively well matched for the parameters described. This difference in neck healing, combined with the lack of evidence for a contribution to flap loss, suggests active drains should be used following neck dissection in both free flap and non-free flap cases.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app