Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Whether drainage should be used after surgery for breast cancer? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Medical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate whether patients benefit from the suction drainage after axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in breast cancer surgery. RCTs of drainage versus no drainage after ALND in women with breast cancer were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical database. Two authors independently assessed the quality of included trials and extracted data. Odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 1115 titles were indentified from the databases; 1109 obvious irrelevant studies were excluded by examining the titles, abstracts, full texts because of duplicates, no RCT, different modality of drainage, drain for lymphedema, application of fibrin sealant and so on. And then, only 6 RCTs to compare drainage with no drainage after ALND in breast cancer surgery were included in the systematic review and a total of 585 patients were included in the pathological diagnosis of breast cancer in women before surgery, management by ALND with or without addition surgical procedures. The study demonstrated that insertion of a drain in the axilla after breast cancer surgery resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rate of seroma (OR = 0.36, 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81, P = 0.01), the volume of aspiration (MD = −100.10, 95% CI, −174.36 to −25.85, P = 0.008), or the frequency of seroma aspiration (MD = −1.03, 95% CI, −1.35 to −0.71, P < 0.00001), but prolonged the length of hospital stay (MD = 1.52, 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.68, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of wound infection (OR = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.32, P = 0.25) between drainage group and no drainage group. Based on the current evidence, insertion of a drain in the axilla following ALND in breast cancer surgery effectively decreased seroma formation, volume of aspiration as well as the frequency of seroma aspiration without increasing the incidence of wound infection, but extending their stay in hospital.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dent S, Messersmith H, Trudeau M. Gemcitabine in the management of metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108:319–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2137–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Author Unknown. American Cancer Society Statistic for 2009. Cancer Facts and Figures 2009. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/500809web/Cancer_Statistic_2009_Slides_rev.ppt. Accessed 27 March 2010.

  4. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, et al. Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3357–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Taguchi T, et al. Physiology of seroma in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2005;12:288–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vinton AL, Traverso LW, Jolly PC. Wound complications after modified radical mastectomy compared with tylectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Am J Surg. 1991;161:584–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen CY, Hoe AL, Wong CY. The effect of a pressure garment on post-surgical drainage and seroma formation in breast cancer patients. Singapore Med J. 1998;39:412–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Burak WE, Goodman PS, Young DC, et al. Seroma formation following axillary dissection for breast cancer: risk factors and lack of influence of bovine thrombin. J Surg Oncol. 1997;64:27–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Coveney EC, O’Dwyer PJ, Geraghty JG, et al. Effect of closing dead space on seroma formation after mastectomy—a prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1993;19:143–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Uden P, Aspegren K, Balldin G, et al. Fibrin adhesive in radical mastectomy. Eur J Surg. 1993;159:263–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Talbot ML, Magarey CJ. Reduced use of drains following axillary lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72:488–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lumachi F, Brandes AA, Burelli P, et al. Seroma prevention following axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer by using ultrasound scissors: a prospective clinical study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:526–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McCarthy PM, Martin JK Jr, Wells DC, et al. An aborted, prospective, randomized trial of sclerotherapy for prolonged drainage after mastectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1986;162:418–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Hea BJ, Ho MN, Petrek JA. External compression dressing versus standard dressing after axillary lymphadenectomy. Am J Surg. 1999;177:450–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shamley DR, Barker K, Simonite V, et al. Delayed versus immediate exercises following surgery for breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;90:263–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ulusoy AN, Polat C, Alvur M, et al. Effect of fibrin glue on lymphatic drainage and on drain removal time after modified radical mastectomy: a prospective randomized study. Breast J. 2003;9:393–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moss JP. Historical and current perspectives on surgical drainage. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1981;152:517–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Agrawal A, Ayantunde AA, Cheung KL. Concepts of seroma formation and prevention in breast cancer surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76:1088–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Droeser RA, Frey DM, Oertli D, et al. Volume-controlled versus no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Breast. 2009;18:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cameron AEP, Ebbs SR, Wylie F, et al. Suction drainage of the axilla: a prospective randomized trial. Br J Surg. 1988;75:1211.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Somers RG, Jablon LK, Kaplan MJ, et al. The use of closed suction drainage after lumpectomy and axillary node dissection for breast cancer. A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 1992;215:146–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zavotsky J, Jones RC, Brennan MB, et al. Evaluation of axillary lymphadenectomy without axillary drainage for patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:227–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jain PK, Sowdi R, Anderson ADG, et al. Randomized clinical trial investigating the use of drains and fibrin sealant following surgery for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2004;91:54–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Soon PS, Clark J, Magarey CJ. Seroma formation after axillary lymphadenectomy with and without the use of drains. Breast. 2005;14:103–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Classe JM, Berchery D, Campion L, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing axillary padding with closed suction drainage for the axillary wound after lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:820–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Divino CM, Kuerer HM, Tartter PI. Drains prevent seromas following lumpectomy with axillary dissection. Breast J. 2000;6:31–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Petrek JA, Peters MM, Nori S, et al. Axillary lymphadenectomy. A prospective, randomized trial of 13 factors influencing drainage, including early or delayed arm mobilization. Arch Surg. 1990;125:378–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pogson CJ, Adwani A, Ebbs SR. Seroma following breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:711–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Roses DF, Brooks AD, Harris MN, et al. Complications of level I and II axillary dissection in the treatment of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg. 1999;230:194–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Tejler G, Aspegren K. Complications and hospital stay after surgery for breast cancer: a prospective study of 385 patients. Br J Surg. 1985;72:542–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Horgan K, Benson EA, Miller A, et al. Early discharge with drain in situ following axillary lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Breast. 2000;9:90–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank many people who contributed to this study. Xin Li and Kang Yi searched database. Bin Ma modified the study of English expression and grammar. We declare that there is no financial support or relationships that may pose conflict of interest in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No. 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, Gansu, 730000, China

    Xiao-Dong He, Zhi-Hui Guo, Jin-Hui Tian & Ke-Hu Yang

  2. The Second Hospital, Lanzhou University, No. 82 Cuiying Road, Lanzhou, Gansu, China

    Xiao-Dong He & Zhi-Hui Guo

  3. Genetic Institute, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No. 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, Gansu, China

    Xiao-Dong Xie

Authors
  1. Xiao-Dong He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhi-Hui Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jin-Hui Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ke-Hu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiao-Dong Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-Dong He.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

He, XD., Guo, ZH., Tian, JH. et al. Whether drainage should be used after surgery for breast cancer? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Med Oncol 28 (Suppl 1), 22–30 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9673-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9673-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation