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

Batstone, Martin Druce, Lowe, Derek, Shaw, Richard J., Brown, James S., Vaughan, E. David and Rogers, Simon N. (2009) Passive versus active drainage following neck dissection: a non-randomised prospective study. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 266 1: 121-124. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0723-8

Author Batstone, Martin Druce
Lowe, Derek
Shaw, Richard J.
Brown, James S.
Vaughan, E. David
Rogers, Simon N.
Title Passive versus active drainage following neck dissection: a non-randomised prospective study
Journal name European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0937-4477
Publication date 2009-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1007/s00405-008-0723-8
Volume 266
Issue 1
Start page 121
End page 124
Total pages 4
Place of publication Heidelberg, Germany
Publisher Springer
Language eng
Abstract 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.
Keyword Active
Neck dissection
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Medicine Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 10 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 10 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 07 Aug 2013, 12:32:08 EST by Martin Batstone on behalf of Surgery - Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital