Drain Placement After Pancreatic Resection: Friend or Foe For Surgical Site Infections?

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple studies and randomized trials, there remains controversy over whether drains should be placed, and if so for how long, after pancreas resection. The aim was to determine if post-pancreatectomy drain placement and timing of drain removal were associated with differences in infectious outcomes and, if so, which specific procedures and infectious sites were most at risk. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP targeted pancreatectomy database was utilized to identify patients who underwent pancreatectomies between 2015 and 2020 with postoperative drain placement for retrospective cohort analysis. A propensity score matching analyses was conducted to determine associations between drain placement and surgical site infections (SSI). RESULTS: Of 39,057 pancreatic resections, 66.4% were proximal pancreatectomies, and 33.6% were distal pancreatectomies. After propensity score matching, drain placement was not associated with significantly lower rates of superficial SSI (7% vs 9%, p = 0.755) or organ/space SSI (17% vs 16%, p = 0.647) after proximal pancreatectomy. After distal pancreatectomy, drain placement was associated with higher rates of organ/space SSI (12% vs 9%, p = 0.010). Drain removal on or after postoperative day 3 was significantly associated with higher rates of SSI in both proximal and distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Drain placement is associated with an increased rate of organ/space SSI after distal pancreatectomy and not after pancreaticoduodenectomy. When drains are utilized, early removal is associated with a reduction of SSI after all types of pancreatectomy. In surgical units where post-pancreatectomy SSI is a concern, selective drain placement for high-risk glands or after distal pancreatectomy, combined with early drain removal, may be considered.

Improving access to shared decision-making for Hispanics/Latinos with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

PURPOSE: To describe the cultural and linguistic adaptation and Spanish translation of an English-language patient decision aid (PDA) for use in supporting shared decision-making in Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a group at a high risk for complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A steering committee of endocrinologists, a primary care physician, a certified diabetes educator, and a dietician, each with extensive experience in providing care to Hispanics/Latinos was convened to assess a PDA developed for English-speaking patients with T2DM. English content was reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness for a Hispanic/Latino population. A consensus-building process and iterative version edits incorporated clinician perspectives. The content was adapted to be consistent with traditional Hispanic/Latino cultural communication precepts (eg, avoidance of hostile confrontation; value for warm interaction; respect for authority; value of family support for decisions). The PDA was translated by native-speaking individuals with diabetes expertise. RESULTS: The PDA underwent testing during cognitive interviews with ten Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM to ensure that the content is reflective of the experience, understanding, and language Hispanic/Latino patients use to describe diabetes and treatment. Content edits were made to assure a literacy level appropriate to the audience, and the PDA was produced for online video dissemination. CONCLUSION: High-quality, well-developed tools to facilitate shared decision-making in populations with limited access to culturally sensitive information can narrow gaps and align care with individual patient preferences. A newly developed PDA is available for shared decision-making that provides culturally appropriate treatment information for inadequately controlled Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM. The impact on the overall health of patients and care management of T2DM requires further study.