Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • The use of drains reportedly does not improve surgical outcomes after hip replacement

  • If the surgeon, considering the course of the procedure and local conditions, decided that suction drainage was necessary despite randomization, the patient was excluded from the study and the envelope was not opened

  • Primary outcomes The mean thickness of the fluid assessed at the level of the endoprosthesis neck in the drainage group was 10.3 mm while that in the no-drainage group was 9.8 mm

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The use of drains reportedly does not improve surgical outcomes after hip replacement. Significant intraoperative blood loss can affect hemostasis, leading to increased postoperative bleeding [3]. Excessive hematoma formation may serve as a medium for bacterial growth In this situation, not using suction drainage could lead to a larger hematoma in the joint and increase the risk of infection. Several studies have documented the risk of infection in the context of prolonged suction drainage [4, 5]. These factors encouraged us to perform an analysis to assess the risks of hematoma formation and infection among patients after primary hip replacement according to drainage use

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call