442 Prophylactic Peri-Nephric Drain Placement in Renal Transplant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Usage of prophylactic perinephric drains is variable in renal transplantation, drains are associated with risks, and there is a lack of consensus as to the relative benefit of placing a drain intraoperatively in this patient cohort. This meta-analysis assessed whether prophylactic perinephric drainage reduced the need for postoperative intervention to manage collections. Method This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021255795). A literature search was carried out in June 2023, and titles and s was screened against our pre-defined criteria. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Summary statistics for outcomes of interest underwent meta-analyses to a confidence interval (CI) of 95% and are presented as Forest Plots for Odds Ratio (OR). Results Literature search revealed 1540 unique titles and s across all four databases. Of these, 4 retrospective cohort studies were selected. Meta-analysis of 3 studies showed no evidence of a significant reduction in reintervention rate with drain placement, OR=0.59 (95%CI: 0.16-2.23, p=0.44). Meta-analysis did not show a significant reduction in perinephric collections with drainage OR=0.55 (95%CI: 0.13-2.37, p=0.42). Finally, there is not good evidence that drain placement reduces superficial wound complications or improves 12-month graft survival. Conclusions Given the lack of current evidence basis supporting the practice of prophylactic perinephric drain placement in renal transplantation, we advocate for a drain-free strategy in this patient cohort. Well-designed, prospective studies to assess the risks and benefits of intraoperative drain placement in these patients is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".