Background: The use of closed-suction drainage systems after total joint replacement is a common practice. The theoretical advantages for the use of drains is a reduction in the occurrence of wound hematomas and infection. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine, on the basis of the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the advantages and adverse effects of surgical drains.

Methods: All randomized trials, as far as we know, that compared patients managed with closed-suction drainage systems and those managed without a drain following elective hip and knee arthroplasty were considered. The trials were identified with use of searches of the Cochrane Collaboration with no restriction on languages or source. Two authors independently extracted the data, and the methods of all identified trials were assessed.

Results: Eighteen studies involving 3495 patients with 3689 wounds were included in the analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no significant difference between the wounds treated with a drain and those treated without a drain with respect to the occurrence of wound infection (relative risk, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.14), wound hematoma (relative risk, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 4.07), or reoperations for wound complications (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 1.99). A drained wound was associated with a significantly greater need for transfusion (relative risk, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.72). Reinforcement of wound dressings was required more frequently in the group managed without drains. No difference between the groups was seen with respect to limb-swelling, venous thrombosis, or hospital stay.

Conclusions: Studies to date have indicated that closed suction drainage increases the transfusion requirements after elective hip and knee arthroplasty and has no major benefits. Further randomized trials with use of larger numbers of patients with full reporting of outcomes are indicated before the absence of any benefit, particularly for the outcome of wound infection, can be proved.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level I-2 (systematic review of Level-I randomized controlled trials [studies were homogeneous]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Closed suction drainage for hip and knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis.

Closed suction drains reduce postoperative hematoma formation, but create an entry portal for bacteria and thus increase the risk of infection. This study attempts to establish when the risks of wound drainage outweigh the benefits. In a prospective clinical trial, wound drains were used in all patients having a total knee or total hip arthroplasty. Timing of drain removal and amount drained were recorded. Drain-site swabs were sent with drain tips for bacteriology. Results suggest that the likelihood of bacterial colonization increases while wound drainage decreases with time. The authors conclude that the optimal time to remove drains is 24 hours after total joint arthroplasty.

Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total joint arthroplasty

A prospective study of 120 consecutive total hip replacements showed that deep suction drains produced maximal drainage volumes in the first 24 hours. Their continued presence resulted in minimal further drainage, did not reduce the likelihood of haematoma formation and led in some cases to the spread of skin organisms into the wound.

/pdf/the-effect-of-suction-drains-after-total-hip-replacement-2c55nusot5.pdf

The effect of suction drains after total hip replacement.

The routine use of surgical drains in total hip arthroplasty remains controversial. They have not been shown to decrease the rate of wound infection significantly and can provide a retrograde route for it. Their use does not reduce the size or incidence of post-operative wound haematomas. This prospective, randomised study was designed to evaluate the role of drains in routine total hip arthroplasty. We investigated 552 patients (577 hips) undergoing unilateral or bilateral total hip arthroplasty who had been randomised to either having a drain for 24 hours or not having a drain. All patients followed standardised pre-, intra-, and post-operative regimes and were independently assessed using the Harris hip score before operation and at six, 18 and 36 months follow-up. The rate of superficial and deep infection was 2.9% and 0.4%, respectively, in the drained group and 4.8% and 0.7%, respectively in the undrained group. One patient in the undrained group had a haematoma which did not require drainage or transfusion. The rate of transfusion after operation in the drained group was significantly higher than for undrained procedures (p < 0.042). The use of a drain did not influence the post-operative levels of haemoglobin, the revision rates, Harris hip scores, the length of hospital stay or the incidence of thromboembolism. We conclude that drains provide no clear advantage at total hip arthroplasty, represent an additional cost, and expose patients to a higher risk of transfusion.

A prospective, randomised, controlled trial of the use of drains in total hip arthroplasty

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of 28 dogs with generalized septic peritonitis treated without postoperative abdominal drainage. The overall mortality rate was 46%, with most cases of peritonitis being caused by leakage of the gastrointestinal tract (75%). Etiology of peritonitis, abdominal cytopathology, total white blood cell count, packed cell volume, total protein, and results of serum biochemistries were not statistically different between survivors and nonsurvivors. The mortality rate of 46% is similar to other studies in which the abdomen was left open postoperatively for the management of septic peritonitis, although more advanced medical treatment than that used in earlier studies may have positively affected the outcome. The results of this study show that closure of the abdomen after the source of contamination has been successfully corrected, in combination with thorough intraoperative peritoneal lavage and appropriate postoperative medical management, may be an acceptable alternative method for the management of septic peritonitis.

B H Casey

Papers

Bacterial spread in polyethylene tubing. A possible source of surgical wound contamination.