Latex and silicone drains in surgery − is the ban on rubber drains really a step forward or rather a step back?

Česká verze

Authors: J. Hrubovčák ¹; I. Dudík ²; J. Voves ²; J. Roman ¹; F. Jalůvka ¹; P. Jelínek ¹; I. Slívová ¹; M. Tesař ¹; P. Vávra ¹; L. Tulinský ¹
Authors place of work: Chirurgická klinika, Fakultní nemocnice Ostrava ¹; Klinika chirurgie a úrazové chirurgie, Fakultní nemocnice Ostrava ²
Published in the journal: Rozhl. Chir., 2022, roč. 101, č. 11, s. 525-529.
Category: Souhrnné sdělení
doi: https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2022.101.11.525–529

Summary

The use of silicone and latex drains is an integral part of surgical practice. Experience and the review of the world literature show that silicone drain is characterized by a much lower rate of fibrotic reaction of the tissue around the drain. The ability of a latex, or rubber, or popularly called rubber drain, to induce the formation of ligaments in its surroundings is advantageously used in situations where the targeted formation of scar tissue is desired. This feature is absent in silicone drains. However, nowadays the rule in most surgical departments is to use almost exclusively silicone drains, which is based on prevention of latex allergy. This article is devoted to the description of the different and mutually irreplaceable use of silicone and latex drains. Subsequently, he also discusses the question of whether the twilight of the use of latex drains in modern medicine is really progress, or rather retrogression.

Keywords:

Rubber – tissue reaction – drain – silicone – latex

Zdroje

1. Agrawal AA, Konno K. Latex: A model for understanding mechanisms, ecology, and evolution of plant defense against herbivory. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2009 Dec;40(1):311–331. doi:10.1146/annurev. ecolsys.110308.120307.

2. Wang H, Yang L, Rempel GL. Homogeneous hydrogenation art of nitrile butadiene rubber: A review. Polymer Reviews 2013 May;53(2):192–239. doi:10.1080/15 583724.2013.776586.

3. Polyisoprene | chemical compound. In: Encyclopædia Britannica [Internet]. 2019. Available at: https://www.britannica. com/science/polyisoprene.

4. Clarence-Smith WG. John Tully. The devil’s milk. A social history of rubber. Monthly Review Press. International Review of Social History 2011 Nov 17;56(3):542– 544. ISBN: 1583672311.

5. Silicone | Definition, Composition, Properties, Uses, & Facts. In: Encyclopædia Britannica [Internet]. 2019. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/ silicone

6. Bolognia J, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP. Dermatology: 2 Volume Set. St. Louis, Mosby 2007:1443. ISBN: 0323024092.

7. Anderson JM. Biological responses to materials. Annual Review of Materials Research 2001 Aug;31(1):81–110. doi:10.1146/annurev.matsci.31.1.81.

8. Yamashita K, Fujita H, Kawamata S. Fine structural and cytochemical aspects of granuloma formation derived from Kupffer cells in mice injected with latex particles. Archivum Histologicum Japonicum 1985;48(3):315–326. doi:10.1679/ aohc.48.315.

9. de Faria Castro Fleury E, D’Alessandro GS, Lordelo Wludarski SC. Silicone-induced granuloma of breast implant capsule (SIGBIC): Histopathology and radiological correlation. Journal of Immunology Research. 2018 Sep 20;2018:1–9. doi:10.1155/2018/6784971.

10. Taylor JS, Erkek E. Latex allergy: diagnosis and management. Dermatologic Therapy 2004 Sep;17(4):289–301. doi:10.1111/ j.1396-0296.2004.04024.x.

11. Murphy RX. Idiosyncratic allergic reaction: A rare complication of augmentation mammoplasty. Breast Augmentation 2009;617–22. doi:10.1007/978-3- 540-78948-2_70.

12. Mojsiewicz-Pieńkowska K. Size exclusion chromatography with evaporative light scattering detection as a method for speciation analysis of polydimethylsiloxanes. II. Validation of the method for analysis of pharmaceutical formulations. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2011 Dec;56(4):851–858. doi:10.1016/j. jpba.2011.07.021.

13. de Buyl F. Silicone sealants and structural adhesives. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 2001 Jan;21(5):411– 422. doi:10.1016/S0143-7496(01)00018- 5.

14. King J, Kupferthaler A, Unterkofler K, et al. Isoprene and acetone concentration profiles during exercise on an ergometer. Journal of Breath Research 2009;3(2):027006. doi:10.1088/1752- 7155/3/2/027006.

15. Smith D, Španěl P, Enderby B, et al. Isoprene levels in the exhaled breath of 200 healthy pupils within the age range 7–18 years studied using SIFT-MS. Journal of Breath Research 2009 Dec 18;4(1):017101. doi:10.1088/1752-7155/4/1/017101.

16. Garrido L, Pfleiderer B, Papisov M, et al. In vivo degradation of silicones. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 1993 Jun;29(6):839–843. doi:10.1002/ mrm.1910290620.

17. Pfleiderer B, Moore A, Tokareva E, et al. Biodegradation of polysiloxanes in lymph nodes of rats measured with 29Si NMR. Biomaterials 1999 Mar;20(6):561–571. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00208-7.

18. Pfleiderer B, Ackerman JL, Garrido L. Migration and biodegradation of free silicone from silicone gel-filled implants after long-term implantation. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 1993 Nov;30(5):534–543. doi:10.1002/ mrm.1910300503.

19. Apalakis A. An experimental evaluation of the types of material used for bile duct drainage tubes. British Journal of Surgery 1976 Jun;63(6):440–445. doi:10.1002/ bjs.1800630608.

20. Koivusalo A, Eskelinen M, Wolff H, et al. Development of T-tube tracts in piglets: effect of insertion method and material of T-tubes. Research in Experimental Medicine 1997 Jan;197(1):53–61. doi:10.1007/s004330050055.

21. Koivusalo A, Mäkisalo H, Talja M, et al. Bacterial adherence and biofilm formation on latex and silicone T-tubes in relation to bacterial contamination of bile. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1996 Jan;31(4):398–403. doi:10.3109/00365529609006417.

22. Kolff J, Hoeltge G, Hermann RE, et al. T tube splints for biliary repair. The American Journal of Surgery 1975 Mar;129(3):236–240. doi:10.1016/0002- 9610(75)90230-5.

23. Nundy S, Bell GD, Cowley DJ, et al. Are silicone rubber T-tubes better than latex rubber tubes in the common bile duct? A Rhesus monkey model. British Journal of Surgery 1974 Mar;61(3):206–208. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800610309.

24. Baumgartner D, Buchmann P, Linder E, et al. Silicone rubber – an unsuitable and dangerous material for T-drains [Article in German], Helvetica Chirurgica Acta. 1976 Dec;43(5−6):739−744.

25. Maghsoudi H, Garadaghi A, Jafary GA. Biliary peritonitis requiring reoperation after removal of T-tubes from the common bile duct. The American Journal of Surgery 2005 Sep;190(3):430–433. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.015.

26. Young S, D’Souza D, Hunter D, et al. The use of latex catheters to close enterocutaneous fistulas: An institutional protocol and retrospective review. American Journal of Roentgenology 2017 Jun;208(6):1373–1377. doi:10.2214/ AJR.16.17294.

27. Stewart GR, Hurst R, Hadgis C, et al. Rubber sump drainage of enterocutaneous fistulae. ANZ Journal of Surgery 1979 Aug;49(4):459–465. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.1979.tb05840.x.

28. Parsak CK, Sire A, Sakman G, et al. Comparing the drain materials: What happens due to them? Visceral Medicine 2007;23(2):189–194. doi:10.1159/ 000100560.

29. Nacey JN, Tulloch AGS, Ferguson AF. Catheter-induced urethritis: a comparison between latex and silicone catheters in a prospective clinical trial. British Journal of Urology 1985 Jun;57(3):325–328. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.1985.tb06354.x.

30. Talja M, Korpela A, Jarvi K. Comparison of urethral reaction to full silicone, hydrogen- coated and siliconised latex catheters. British Journal of Urology 1990 Dec;66(6):652–657. doi:10.1111/j.1464- 410X.1990.tb07203.x.

31. Liedberg H. Catheter induced urethral inflammatory reaction and urinary tract infection. An experimental and clinical study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. Supplementum 1989;124:1−43.

32. Huang WY, Wei LP, Ji YG, et al. Effect of silicon and latex urinary catheters: a comparative study. Di 1 jun yi da xue xue bao − Academic Journal of the First Medical College of PLA. 2005 Aug;25(8):1026−1028.