• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Drain placement in primary bariatric surgery: helpful or hindrance?

Drain placement in primary bariatric surgery: helpful or hindrance?

Arielle E Kanters, MD, MS, Sarah P Shubeck, MD, Justin B Dimick, MD, MPH, Dana A Telem, MD, MPH. University of Michigan

Introduction: The use of closed suction drains is associated with poor outcomes in many anastomotic operations and routine use is not recommended. In this context, intraoperative drain placement for primary bariatric surgery remains controversial. Recent studies demonstrate that drains confer no benefit to patients; however, data are limited to descriptive single center experiences with low sample size. In order to characterize this practice gap, and implement evidence based recommendations, we sought to evaluate the use of closed suction drain and outcomes following primary bariatric cases using the MBSAQIP registry.

Methods: We used data from the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) public use file for patients who underwent a non-revisional laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We excluded patients with ASA status greater than 3 or conversion to an open procedure. We analyzed demographics, preoperative comorbidities, procedure type for patients who did and did not undergo drain placement. Adjusted rates of postoperative complications and mortality were then compared based on receipt of postoperative drain placement.

Results: Of the 141,404 included patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery, 33,618 (23.8%) underwent intraoperative drain placement. Drains were more often placed in patients who underwent LRYGB, were older, had higher preoperative BMI, had higher preoperative ASA status, and had more comorbid conditions. After patient level risk adjustment, there was no difference in rates of leaks requiring intervention (0.32% versus 0.26%, p=0.065) or mortality (6.5% versus 5.4%, p=0.206) for patients with and without drains. In patients who underwent drain placement, there were higher rates of transfusion (9.2% versus 5.6%, p<0.001), reoperations for bleeding (0.30% versus 0.18%, p=0.001), all reoperations (4.8% versus 3.9%, p<0.001), and surgical site infections (SSI) (1.0% versus 0.6%, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrates that nearly one quarter of all laparoscopic bariatric surgery patients undergo drain placement. We found that drain placement is more common in preoperatively higher risk patients and following higher complexity procedures as suggested by associated increased rates of transfusion and reoperations for bleeding. We found no benefit to drain placement in terms of interventions for clinically significant leaks or mortality. Finally, patients who underwent drain placement were more likely to develop SSI suggesting routine placement is not without risk. Although further prospective studies are warranted, our analysis demonstrates that drains have the potential for harm with minimal protective benefit for patients after primary bariatric surgery. 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 88314

Program Number: P633

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

122

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals