Comment on Kumar et al.: Are drains required following a routine primary total joint arthroplasty?

Al-Naser, Saeed

doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0497-4

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 The routine use of Redon drains in primary THA remains widespread despite a lack of supporting scientific evidence. [3][4][5] Redon drainage is based on the hypothesis of stopping potential hematoma development, which is associated with delayed wound healing, increased pain, and increased deep infection risk. However, as a foreign body, the drain provides a lead structure for bacteria and increases the infection risk.…”

Section: Use Of Redon Drains In Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Has Nomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of Redon Drains in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Has No Clinically Relevant Benefits

Roth¹,

Perka²,

Dirschedl³

et al. 2012

Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although no proven evidence exists for the use of drainage in primary total hip arthroplasty, such drainage is routinely used. This prospective, randomized study comprised 80 patients who underwent a non-cemented total hip arthroplasty using a minimally invasive anterolateral approach. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 40: group 1 underwent drainage treatment and group 2 underwent no drainage treatment. No selection of patients occurred by age, sex, or body mass index. Blood loss was not significantly different between groups 1 (mean blood loss, 0.9 L [range, 0.3-2.1 L]) and 2 (mean blood loss, 0.9 L [range, 0.3-2.4 L]) (P=.7). On postoperative day 1, patients who underwent drainage treatment reported significantly more pain at rest (P=.01) and under stress (P=.03). The same finding was observed on postoperative day 4 (at rest, P=.04; under stress, P=.02). The nonuse of drainage significantly reduced operative time by 72 seconds (P=.01). Patients without drainage treatment had significantly larger hematomas than patients with drainage (mean, 43.7 cm(2) [range, 0-343 cm(2)] vs mean, 40.1 cm(2) [range, 0-514 cm(2)], respectively) (P=.03). No clinically relevant benefits associated with the use of drainage were identified. The increased size of the hematoma was not reflected in patient comfort. The authors consider the use of drainage in primary total hip arthroplasty unnecessary.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Redon Drains In Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Has Nomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some studies, the use of drainage was studied in different surgical procedures. 4,5 Al-Naser 3 reported that the individual orthopedic interventions are studied separately to obtain reliable information regarding the use of drainage. The current study investigated a highly standardized procedure in a randomized, prospective setting.…”

Section: E1594mentioning

confidence: 99%