Title: Role of Drainage and Peritoneal Closure after Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy and Bilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection

Authors: Dr Achala Sahai Sharma M.S, Dr B.R Shrivastava Mch. Ph.D

 DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v3i11.33

Abstract

Whether to close or not to close visceral peritoneum and to drain or not to drain the peritoneal cavity after Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy with Bilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection has been a controversial issue since long. Traditionally many advantages of peritonization and putting a pelvic drain have been emphasized. However studies have not proven these instead have indicated towards advantages of not putting drains and non closure of  visceral peritoneum. The present study was undertaken to compare these two techniques.

Aims and objective: To compare the post operative outcome in patients undergoing Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy with Bilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection with drain and peritoneal closure or without drain and peritoneal non-closure.

Patient and Methods: Ours was a prospective case control study over a period of 2 years 2 months. In this study 108 patients undergoing Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy with Bilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection were enrolled. Group I (control group) consisted of 49 patients in whom visceral peritoneal closure was done and pelvic suction drains were cited. Group II (study group) consisted of 59 patients in whom peritoneal non closure was opted and suction drains were not placed. Patients were followed through the post operative period, observed for intra operative and post operative complications, need for blood transfusion, operative time, hospital stay, return of bowel activity and commencement of oral feeding. Occurrence of post operative complications that increase short term post operative morbidity like febrile illness, wound hematoma, infection, dehiscence, paralytic ileus were especially noted The detection of lymphocysts was made by clinical examination and abdominal ultrasound at two weeks, 12 weeks and one year postoperatively

Result: Both groups were similar with respect to age and FIGO stage. The median follow up was 12 months (range 7 months to 24 months). There was no significant difference in the short term post operative complications including pain scores. Though not very significant but there is a shortening of operative time in group II with no significant differences in need of blood transfusion and other operative complications. Post operative ambulation and commencement of oral feeding was attained earlier in group II though again not significant. The diagnosis of lymphocysts by clinical examination in group I was made in three (6.1%) and six (12.2%) cases respectively and in group II three (5.08%) and five (8.4%) cases respectively. Out of these two (4.08%) cases in group I and none of the cases in group II required drainage. These differences were also not found to be significant.

Conclusion: Present study indicates that leaving the peritoneum unsutured and not draining the peritoneal cavity by suction drains is not likely to be hazardous in the short term instead it may be of benefit especially in decreasing incidence of lymphocysts, though the long term effects with regard to future adhesion formation etc. need to be assessed after follow up. Thus both the procedures pelvic suction drainage and peritoneal closure can be safely omitted without any adverse effects.

Keyword--- Abdominal drain, radical, hysterectomy, pelvic, lymph node, peritoneal closure.

References

1.      Symmonds RE. Morbidity and complications of radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 94 : 663-78.

2.      Patsner B. Closed suction drainage versus no drainage following radical abdominal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB cervical cancer. Gynaecologic oncology 1995; 57 : 232-34.

3.      Yates JL. An experimental study of the local effects of peritoneal drainage. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1905; 1 : 473.

4.      Pierluigi BP, Francesco M, Giuseppe C, et al, A randomised study comparing retroperitoneal drainage with no drainage after lymphadenectomy in gynaecologic malignancies. Gynaecologic oncology 1997; 65 : 478-82.

5.      Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol1974; 44 : 265-72.

6.      Petru E, Tamussino K, Lahousen M, Winter R, Pickel H, Haas J. Pelvic and paraaortic lymphocysts after radical surgery because of cervica & ovarian canc-er. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:937-41

7.      Braun WE, Banowsky LH, Straffon RA, Nakamoto S, et al. Lymphoceles associated with renal transplantation. Report of 15 cases and review of the literature. Amer J Med 1974; 57 : 714.

8.      Chrobak L, Bartos V, Brzek V, Hnizdora D. Coagulation properties of human thoracic duct lymph. Amer J Med Sci 1967; 253 : 69.

9.      Mori N. Clinical and experimental studies on so called lymphocyst, which develops after radical hysterectomy in cancer of the uterine cervix. J Jap Obst Gynec Soc 1955; 2 : 178.

10.  Cantrell CJ, Wilkinson EJ. Recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix within  pelvic- abdominal lymphocysts. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62 : 530-34.

11.  Jemal, R. Siegel, E. Ward, Y. Hao, J. Xu, and M. J. Thun, “Cancer statistics, 2009,” CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 225–249, 2009. 

12.  R. Sankaranarayanan, “Overview of cervical cancer in the developing world. FIGO 6th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer ,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 95, supplement 1, pp. S205–S210, 2006. 

13.  H. Okabayashi, “Radical abdominal hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix uteri, modification of the Takayama operation,” Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, vol. 33, pp. 335–341, 1921. 

14.  M. S. Piver, F. Rutledge, and J. P. Smith, “Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 265–272, 1974. 

15.  S. Pecorelli, “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium,” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 103–104, 2009. 

16.  M. Itsukaichi, H. Kurata, M. Matsushita, M. Watanabe, M. Sekine, Y. Aoki, and K. Tanaka, “Stage Ia1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma: conservative management after laser conization with positive margins,”  Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 387–389, 2003.

17.  C.-J. Tseng, S.-G. Horng, Y.-K. Soong, S. Hsueh, G.-H. Hsieh, and H.-W. Lin, “Conservative conization for microinva-sive carcinoma of the cervix,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 176, no. 5, pp. 1009–1010, 1997. 

18.  C. Orlandi, S. Costa, P. Terzano, G. N. Martinelli, G. Comerci, B. Guerra, and L. Martellini, “Presurgical assessment and therapy of microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 255–260, 1995. 

19.  M. Ueki, “Conservative therapy for microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 109–113, 1994. 

20.  M. Morris, M. F. Mitchell, E. G. Silva, L. J. Copeland, and D. M. Gershenson, “Cervical conization as definitive therapy for early invasive squamous carcinoma of the cervix,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 193–196, 1993. 

Corresponding Author

Dr Achala Sahai Sharma

42 – C Jawahar Colony, Lashkar , Gwalior  (Madhya Pradesh), Telephone --  0751—2433094

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Mob-- 9425110631