Closed Suction Drainage System Research Articles

High-pressure gradients generated by closed-suction surgical drainage systems.

Closed suction drains remain in widespread use in surgical practice. There have been reports of complications associated with their use. We sought to characterize the pressure-generating capacities of three commonly used closed suction drainage systems. Three commonly used closed suction surgical drainage systems were studied: Davol Reliavac 400 Evacuator, Jackson-Pratt Closed Wound Suction Drainage System, and Snyder Hemovac 400. Each drainage system was connected to a pneumatic pressure transducer, and pressure measurements were made. Measurements were made with the drain reservoirs at varying degrees of fullness. Measurements were also made while "stripping" the drains. In all three systems, maximal negative pressures (-71 to -175 mm Hg) were generated with the reservoirs empty of fluid. Pressure generation by all drains decreased as the volume of fluid in the reservoir increased. In all cases, drain "stripping" was associated with a transient elevation in drain pressure (p<0.05). In two out of three drains, stripping led to a significant residual increase in static drain pressure. Closed suction drains are capable of generating high pressures that may contribute to some complications associated with their use. Closed suction drainage systems differ with regard to their generation of negative pressure.

Closed suction surgical wound drainage after orthopaedic surgery.

Closed suction drainage systems are frequently used to drain fluids, particularly blood, from surgical wounds. The aim of these systems is to reduce the occurrence of wound haematomas and infection. To evaluate the effectiveness of closed suction drainage systems for orthopaedic surgery. We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (May 2001), MEDLINE (1996-May 2001) and references from articles. All randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing the use of closed suction drainage systems with no drainage systems for all types of elective and emergency orthopaedic surgery. Both reviewers independently assessed trial quality, using a nine item scale, and extracted data. Wherever appropriate and possible, the data are presented graphically. Twenty-one studies involving 2772 patients with 2971 wounds were included in the analysis. The types of surgery involved were hip and knee replacement, shoulder surgery, hip fracture surgery, spinal surgery, cruciate ligament reconstruction, open meniscectomy and fracture fixation surgery. Many of the studies had poor methodology and reporting of outcomes. Pooling of results indicated no difference in the incidence of wound infection, haematoma or dehiscence between those allocated to drains and the un-drained wounds. There was a tendency to an increased risk of re-operation for wound complications in the group with drains (relative risk (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.95 to 5.33), but due to the small numbers of cases involved definite conclusions cannot be made for this outcome. Blood transfusion was required more frequently in those who received drains (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.80). The need for reinforcement of wound dressings (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40) and bruising around the operation site was more common in the group without drains. There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the routine use of closed suction drainage in orthopaedic surgery. Further randomised trials are required before definite conclusions can be made.

A simple, sterile, low-cost, closed suction drainage system.

A simple, sterile, low-cost, closed suction drainage system.