PURPOSE: Several studies have failed to show significant benefits of closed suction drainage (CSD) in routine primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, blood loss, haematoma formation and wound complications are generally much greater in revision THA as compared to primary THA. The purpose of this study was to determine if CSD is beneficial for revision THA patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial at our institution between July 2013 and July 2014. Eighty-eight patients undergoing revision THA were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive a CSD (n = 44) or to not receive a CSD (n = 44). All first-stage revision surgeries for infection were excluded. Primary outcomes were haemoglobin loss and number of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome evaluated with Harris hip score (HHS), pain evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS), and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were significantly more patients in the CSD group that required blood transfusions (20/44 as compared to 11/44, p = 0.04). Patients in the no CSD group were discharged earlier than patients in the CSD group (4.3 days as compared to 5.4 days, p = 0.002). No statistical significant difference was found in the HHS or pain VAS between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate any benefit with the use of CSD for revision THA with regard to wound related complications, infection or early functional outcome. Post-operative blood loss, transfusion rate, and length of hospital stay may be higher with CSD.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Several studies have failed to show significant benefits of closed suction drainage (CSD) in routine primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, blood loss, haematoma formation and wound complications are generally much greater in revision THA as compared to primary THA. The purpose of this study was to determine if CSD is beneficial for revision THA patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial at our institution between July 2013 and July 2014. Eighty-eight patients undergoing revision THA were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive a CSD (n = 44) or to not receive a CSD (n = 44). All first-stage revision surgeries for infection were excluded. Primary outcomes were haemoglobin loss and number of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome evaluated with Harris hip score (HHS), pain evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS), and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were significantly more patients in the CSD group that required blood transfusions (20/44 as compared to 11/44, p = 0.04). Patients in the no CSD group were discharged earlier than patients in the CSD group (4.3 days as compared to 5.4 days, p = 0.002). No statistical significant difference was found in the HHS or pain VAS between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate any benefit with the use of CSD for revision THA with regard to wound related complications, infection or early functional outcome. Post-operative blood loss, transfusion rate, and length of hospital stay may be higher with CSD.
Authors: Dror Lakstein; Yona Kosashvili; David Backstein; Oleg Safir; Paul Lee; Allan E Gross Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Maik Hoberg; Christian Konrads; Jana Engelien; Dorothee Oschmann; Michael Holder; Matthias Walcher; Maximilian Rudert Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Mohammad R Rasouli; Camilo Restrepo; Mitchell G Maltenfort; James J Purtill; Javad Parvizi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Obiora N Muoghalu; Gabriel O Eyichukwu; Emmanuel Iyidobi; Udo E Anyaehie; Kenechi A Madu; Ikechukwu C Okwesili Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.075