Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Wound drainage after axillary dissection for carcinoma of the breast

  1. David R Thomson1,*,
  2. Hazim Sadideen2,
  3. Dominic Furniss3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Breast Cancer Group

Published Online: 20 OCT 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 22 FEB 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006823.pub2


How to Cite

Thomson DR, Sadideen H, Furniss D. Wound drainage after axillary dissection for carcinoma of the breast. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD006823. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006823.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK

  2. 2

    University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Burns Surgery, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK

  3. 3

    Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK

*David R Thomson, Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Medical Sciences Division, Level 3, John Radcliffe Hospital., Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX3 9DU, UK. davidthomson134@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 20 OCT 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about all risk of bias items presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Seroma, outcome: 1.1 Seroma.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Drain inserted versus No drain inserted, outcome: 1.4 Seroma—breast-conserving therapy.
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Seroma, outcome: 1.3 Seroma—mastectomy.
[Figure 7]
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Infection, outcome: 2.1 Infection.
[Figure 8]
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: 4 Length of hospital stay, outcome: 4.1 Length of hospital stay.
[Figure 9]
Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Postoperative seroma aspirations, outcome: 5.1 Number of postoperative seroma aspirations.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Seroma, Outcome 1 Seroma.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Seroma, Outcome 2 Seroma—breast-conserving therapy.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Seroma, Outcome 3 Seroma—mastectomy.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Seroma, Outcome 4 Seroma—Somers and Soon excluded.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Infection, Outcome 1 Infection.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Lymphoedema, Outcome 1 Lymphoedema.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Length of hospital stay, Outcome 1 Length of hospital stay.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Length of hospital stay, Outcome 2 Length of hospital stay (Cameron and Classe).
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Postoperative seroma aspirations, Outcome 1 Number of postoperative seroma aspirations.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Postoperative seroma aspirations, Outcome 2 Volume of postoperative seroma aspirations.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Haematoma, Outcome 1 Haematoma.