Closed-suction drainage versus no drainage following radical abdominal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB cervical cancer

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 1995, Pages 232-234

  Patsner, Bruce ^a  

^a New Jersey Gynecologic Oncology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0029003907     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1995.1131     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Day, T. G., Drainage in gynecologic surgery, Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 31(3), 744-753 (1988).
2. Mann, W. J., Orr, J. W., Shingleton, H. M., Perioperative influences on infectious morbidity in radical hysterectomy, Gynecol. Oncol. 11, 207-212 (1981).
3. Covens, A., Rosen, B., Gibbons, A., Differences in morbidity of radical hysterectomy between gynecologic oncologists, Gynecol. Oncol. 51, 39-45 (1993).
4. Piver, M. S., Rutledge, F., and Smith, I. P. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer, Obstet. Gynecol. 44, 265-272 (1974).
5. Jensen, J. K., Lucci, J. A., DiSaia, P. J., Manetta, A., and Berman, M. L., To drain or not to drain: A retrospective study of closed-suction drainage following radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy, Gynecol. Oncol. 51, 46-49 (1993).
6. Lopez, A., Hall, J., and Monaghan, J. M. Drainage following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection-Dogma or need? Proceedings, 4th Meeting of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society. Stockholm, Sweden. August 30 (1993).