Dataset Information

A prospective randomized study, use of closed suction drainage after revision hip arthroplasty may lead to excessive blood loss.

ABSTRACT: Suction drainage after primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) offers no benefits. Revision hip arthroplasties (RHA) are more demanding procedures and associated with greater blood loss compared to primary cases. There is still a lack of literature regarding the application of drainage in RHA. A total of 40 patients who underwent RHA were included in this prospective study. Simple randomization with an allocation ratio 1:1 was performed. Primary outcomes: total blood loss, hemoglobin drop, joint hematoma size in USG, infection. Secondary outcomes: blood transfusion rate, soft tissue hematomas, C-reactive protein levels, Visual Analogue Scale before and on 3rd day after surgery, Harris Hip Score before and 6 weeks after surgery. An intention to treat analysis was performed, with a 2-year follow up. Statistically significant differences between groups was in blood loss: drainage 1559.78 ml, non-drainage 1058.27 ml, (p = 0.029) and hemoglobin level on 1st day after surgery: drainage 10.58 g/dl, non-drainage 11.61 g/dl (p = 0.0496). In terms of the other analyzed parameters, statistical differences were not found. Our study revealed that the use of suction drainage may lead to higher blood loss in the early postoperative period. Further studies are needed to evaluate our results.

SUBMITTER: Bartosz P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8766571 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of drains reportedly does not improve surgical outcomes after hip replacement. There is still a lack of strict recommendations for drain placement after primary hip replacement. This study aimed to assess the safety of not using suction drainage after primary hip replacement in a population of patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis.MethodsIn this prospective randomized study, all patients were qualified for primary hip replacement and were divided into two groups: with and without drainage. The inclusion criterion was idiopathic hip osteoarthritis. The exclusion criteria were secondary coxarthrosis, autoimmune disease, coagulopathy, venous/arterial thrombosis, hepatic/renal insufficiency, cement, or hybrid endoprostheses. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical, laboratory, and radiographic parameters were measured for the first three days after surgery. Hematoma collection, due to extended thromboprophylaxis, in the joint and soft tissues was evaluated precisely. The patients underwent follow-up for 30 days.ResultsThe final analysis included a total of 100 patients. We did not find any significant statistical differences between groups in terms of hip fluid collection (9.76 vs. 10.33 mm, with and without drainage, respectively; mean difference, 0.6 mm; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.8 to 3.9; p = 0.653), estimated blood loss (1126 vs. 1224 ml; mean difference, 97.1 ml; 95 % CI -84.1 to 278.2; p = 0.59), and hemoglobin levels on postoperative day 3 (11.05 vs. 10.85 g/dl; mean difference, 0.2; 95 % CI -2.1 to 2.5; p = 0.53). In addition, the other parameters did not show significant differences between groups. Notably, two cases of early infections were observed in the no-drainage group, whereas there were no such complications in the drainage group.ConclusionsWe conclude that the use of closed suction drainage after primary hip replacement is a safe procedure in patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis. Further research is warranted to validate these findings.Trial registrationThe study was successfully registered retrospectively at Clinicaltrial.gov with the identification number NCT04333264 03 April 2020.

Dataset Information

A prospective randomized study, use of closed suction drainage after revision hip arthroplasty may lead to excessive blood loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets