Dataset related to article: "Routine placement of abdominal drainage in pouch surgery does not impact on surgical outcomes"

This record contains data related to article: "Routine placement of abdominal drainage in pouch surgery does not impact on surgical outcomes"

The evidence does not support the routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) in colorectal surgery. However, there is no data on the usefulness of AD, specifically, after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The aim of this study is to assess post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing IPAA with or without AD at a high volume referral center. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing IPAA with AD (AD group) or without AD (NAD group) was performed. Baseline characteristics, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed and compared between the two groups. A total of 97 patients were included in the analysis, 46 were in AD group and 51 in NAD group. AD group had a higher BMI (23.9 ± 3.9 kg/m2 vs 21.9 ± 3.0 kg/m2; p = 0.007) and more commonly underwent two-stage proctocolectomy with IPAA compared to the NAD group (50.0% vs 3.9%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (6.5% AD vs 5.9% NAD group; p = 1.000), major post-operative complication (8.6% vs 7.9%; p = 0.893); median length of stay [IQR] (5 [5-7] days vs 5 [4-7] days; p = 0.305) and readmission < 90 days (8.7% vs 3.9%; p = 0.418). The use of AD does not impact on surgical outcome after IPAA and question the actual benefit of its routine placement.