Prospective randomized trial of a closed-suction drain versus a Penrose drain after a colectomy.

Background/Aims: Prospective studies in the gastroenterological surgery literature have shown fewer wound related complications with a closed-suction drainage than with an open passive drainage. This study compared the SSI and cost of closed-suction drainage and open passive drainage in a randomized trial. Methodology: This study involved 112 patients undergoing colectomy from December, 2003 through April, 2007. A closed-suction or an open (Penrose) drainage was used based on the surgeon's preference. The cost and the incidence of complications including SSI was compared in the two drain types. Results: The SSI rate was 13/112 cases 11.6%, but there was no significant difference between the drain groups. In addition, 18 laparoscopic surgery cases did not show any wound infection or drain infections. The closed-suction drain was not expensive regarding personnel expenses and the cost of changing the dressings. Conclusions: No statistically significant postoperative differences were observed between a closed-suction drain or an open drain after a colectomy. However, a closed-suction drain management is useful for the reduction of a cost, labor saving, and the decrease of medical waste.