Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 85-B, Issue SUPP_II, 102.  
Copyright © 2003 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, C P
Right arrow Articles by Parker, M J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, C P
Right arrow Articles by Parker, M J

British Orthopaedic Association


Birmingham – 12–14 September, 2001

President – Professor Charles Galasko


CLOSED SUCTION DRAINAGE AFTER ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY: IS IT NECESSARY?

C P Roberts; and M J Parker

Dept of Orthopaedics, Peterborough District General Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, PE3 6DA

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine based on evidence from all randomised controlled trials whether closed suction drainage is preferable to no drainage for all types of Orthopaedic surgery. Trials were identified by a search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaborative involving hand searching of major journals and computer aided searching of other databases.

Twenty-nine studies were identified but nine were excluded owing to problems with study design or under-reporting of outcomes. Twenty studies involving 2749 patients with 2946 wounds were included in our analysis. These studies included 566 THRs, 860 TKRs, 333 proximal femoral fractures, 287 non-emergency fractures and 900 other procedures.

Two reviewers independently extracted data from the papers. Methodology of the studies was assessed using a nine point scoring system. Generally the studies scored poorly, possibly owing to under-reporting of outcomes.

No study clearly differentiated against deep and superficial wound infections therefore all wound infections were considered together. No differences between the drained and the undrained groups was noted for wound infection overall or in any of the operative sub-groups. Similarly no difference was found for the outcomes of wound haematomas, infection, wound dehiscence, transfusion requirements, limb swelling, venous thrombosis, mortality or hospital stay.

There was a tendency to a higher re-operation rate for wound healing complications and significantly more patients required transfusion in the drained group. The only benefit that was shown in favour of the use of drains was that significantly more patients in the undrained group required dressing reinforcement.

Based on the randomised, controlled trials to date, the routine use of closed suction drainage in Orthopaedic surgery is questionable.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Simon Donell. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Department of Orthopaedics, Norfolk & Norwich Hospital, Level 4, Centre Block, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, United Kingdom






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General