Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/277
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLim, B-
dc.contributor.authorJoesph, K.-
dc.contributor.authorCevik, J.-
dc.contributor.authorLi, H.-
dc.contributor.authorXie, Y.-
dc.contributor.authorHernandez, A. M.-
dc.contributor.authorCuomo, R.-
dc.contributor.authorRozen, W. M.-
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-10T00:42:41Z-
dc.date.available2024-12-10T00:42:41Z-
dc.date.issued2024-11-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Medicine . 2024 Nov 1;13(21):6586. doi: 10.3390/jcm13216586.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/277-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction is an increasingly popular technique, but controversy exists regarding the optimal use of closed suction drains (CSD) at the abdominal donor site. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on CSD application, criteria for placement/removal, and complications in DIEP flap procedures. Alternative techniques and implications for postoperative care are also discussed. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in August 2024 across several databases to identify English language studies related to CSD use in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Inclusion criteria consisted of original research on aspects such as CSD volume criteria, timing, complications, alternatives like progressive tension sutures, and impact on showering and patient outcomes. References from relevant papers were hand-searched. Results: The review found a lack of consensus on CSD protocols, with drainage volume triggering removal varying widely from 5 mL to 80 mL daily. While CSD may reduce seroma/hematoma formation, earlier removal (≤3 days) did not increase complications and shortened hospital stay. Progressive tension sutures show promise as an alternative, with evidence of comparable or reduced complications and improved recovery versus CSD. The safety of early showering with drains remains unclear. Conclusions: Although CSD aims to minimize postoperative complications, more rigorous randomized trials are needed to establish evidence-based practices for the timing of removal and demonstrate the efficacy of emerging drain-free techniques on patient-centered outcomes. Standardized criteria could reduce practice variability. Further research should also explore the long-term impact of drainage strategies on aesthetic and functional results.en
dc.subjectPostoperative Careen
dc.subjectLength of Stayen
dc.subjectConsensusen
dc.subjectDrainageen
dc.subjectPostoperative Complicationsen
dc.subjectMammaplastyen
dc.subjectSuturesen
dc.subjectEstheticsen
dc.subjectHematomaen
dc.subjectPatient-Centered Careen
dc.titleOptimal Use of Drain Tubes for DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: Comprehensive Reviewen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorJoseph, Konrad-
Appears in Collections:Surgery

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat  
jcm-13-06586.pdf572.57 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing