Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Closed-suction Drain Versus Passive Gravity Drain Following Pancreatic Resection

Pancreatic resection is the only potentially curative modality of treatment for pancreatic neoplasm. The mortality associated with this procedure decreased rapidly in the past decades. However, the morbidity associated with pancreatic resection remains high. The main reason for postoperative morbidity is postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), which is regarded as the most ominous complication following pancreatic resection. Its reported incidence varies in the surgical literature from 10% to \>30%. Recently published studies showed that the placement of intraoperative drains, manipulation with the drains, timing of removal of the drain, and especially the type of drain, have significant effect on the postoperative complications, and especially POPF. Controversy exists regarding the type of intraoperatively placed drain. Nowadays, the two most commonly used systems are closed suction drainage and closed gravity drainage. Open systems have been abandoned in most centers as they are obsolete. Our hypothesis is that the closed suction drain will have better results as it is more effective than the gravity drainage. However, some surgeons claim that the suction system can actively suck the pancreatic juice through the anastomosis or suture and thus promote the development of POPF. The aim of this study is to compare closed suction drains and closed gravity drains after pancreatic resection in a randomized controlled study. The primary end-point is the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate. The secondary end-point is the postoperative morbidity.