↓ Skip to main content

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in women with gynaecological malignancies

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in women with gynaecological malignancies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007387.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kittipat Charoenkwan, Chumnan Kietpeerakool

Abstract

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2014. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is associated with significant complications including lymphocyst formation and related morbidities. Retroperitoneal drainage using suction drains has been recommended as a method to prevent such complications. However, findings from recent studies have challenged this policy. To assess the effects of retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy on lymphocyst formation and related morbidities in women with gynaecological cancer. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2017) in the Cochrane Library, electronic databases MEDLINE (1946 to March Week 2, 2017), Embase (1980 to 2017 week 12), and the citation lists of relevant publications. We also searched the trial registries for ongoing trials on 20 May 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with gynaecological cancer. Retroperitoneal drainage was defined as placement of passive or active suction drains in pelvic retroperitoneal spaces. No drainage was defined as no placement of passive or active suction drains in pelvic retroperitoneal spaces. We assessed studies using methodological quality criteria. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We examined continuous data using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Since the last version of this review, we have identified no new studies for inclusion. The review included four studies with 571 women. Regarding short-term outcomes (within four weeks after surgery), retroperitoneal drainage was associated with a comparable rate of overall lymphocyst formation when all methods of pelvic peritoneum management were considered together (2 studies; 204 women; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.04 to 13.35; moderate-quality evidence). When the pelvic peritoneum was left open, the rates of overall lymphocyst formation (1 study; 110 women; RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.79) and symptomatic lymphocyst formation (2 studies; 237 women; RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.26 to 8.37) were higher in the drained group. At 12 months after surgery, the rates of overall lymphocyst formation were comparable between the groups (1 study; 232 women; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.45; high-quality evidence). However, there was a trend toward increased risk of symptomatic lymphocyst formation in the group with drains (1 study; 232 women; RR 7.12, 95% CI 0.89 to 56.97; low-quality evidence). Placement of retroperitoneal tube drains has no benefit in the prevention of lymphocyst formation after pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with gynaecological malignancies. When the pelvic peritoneum is left open, the tube drain placement is associated with a higher risk of short- and long-term symptomatic lymphocyst formation. We found the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach to be moderate to high for most outcomes, except for symptomatic lymphocyst formation at 12 months after surgery, and unclear or low risk of bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 17 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,634,365
of 15,664,655 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,989
of 11,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,586
of 269,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,664,655 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.