Abstract

Background: The use of closed suction drains in orthopedics has been a subject of controversy over the years. The drain has a common and effective role in general surgery but its use in orthopedics has yet to be justified. This study aims to elucidate the effect of closed suction drainage on the outcome of the extracapsular fractures of the neck of femur treated by DHS.

Methods: 160 patients were included in the study. A non-randomized prospective cohort study design was used. There were two groups of 80 involved, which were all the patients undergoing DHS surgery in KTH from the period of Feb-June 2016. One group received a drain while the other did not, and the 2 groups were homogeneous in every respect other than the use of the drain. All the patients were followed up until 2 weeks postoperatively and appropriate statistical analysis methods were used.

Results: The mean age was 61 ± 2.8. 51% of the fractures were intertrochanteric. The drains were removed after 72 hours in 63% of the drained group. 10% of the entire sample developed wound infections. Statistically significant postoperative complications were found in the drained group when compared to the non-drained group with a RR of 2 (95% CI) especially for respiratory complications.

Discussion: This is the first study of its kind in Sudan. Compared to other studies which showed no statistically significant difference in the use or nonuse of drains, this study showed that the use of closed suction drains is twice more likely to result in a postoperative complication than the nonuse of a drain. Also, drains should be removed within 24 hours as recommended by Chandretaya., et al. Based on these findings, the use of post-operative surgical drains in DHS should be limited by Orthopedic surgeons in Sudan.

Keywords: Cardiovascular; Sudan; Dynamic Hip Screw

References

1. Gaines RJ. “The Use of Surgical Drains in Orthopedics”. Orthopedics7 (2008): 702-705.
2. Akinsulire AT. “Use and Abuse of Drains in Surgery” (2009).
3. , et al. “Closed suction drainage after hip arthroplasty: a prospective study of bacterial contamination in 81 cases”. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 64 (1993): 417-420.
4. Willemen D., et al. “Closed suction drainage following knee arthroplasty: effectiveness and risks”. C/in Orthopedics 264 (1991): 232-234.
5. Willett KM., et al. “The effect of suction drains after total hip replacement”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 70B (1988): 607-610.
6. Drinkwater CJ and Neil MJ. “Wound drainage in arthroplasty”. Journal of Arthroplasty 10 (1995): 185-189.
7. Chandrateya A. “To Drain or not to Drain Literature vs. Practice”. The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 43 (1998): 404-406.
8. Drinkwater CJ and Neil MJ. “Optimal Timing of Wound Drains Removal Following Total Joint Arthroplasty”. Journal of Arthroplasty2 (1995): 185-189.
9. Parker MJ., et al. “Closed Suction Drainage for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty A Meta-analysis”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery6 (2004): 1146-1150.
10. Clifton R., et al. “Closed suction surgical wound drainage after hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”. International Orthopedics6 (2007).
11. Khanal GP., et al. “A study to evaluate the role of suction drains in orthopedic surgery”. Health Renaissance2 (2011): 91-94.
12. Tjeenk RM., et al. “Wound drainage versus non-drainage for proximal femoral fractures a prospective randomized study”. Injury 36 (2005): 100-104.
13. Varley GW., et al. “Ultrasound assessment of the efficacy of wound drains”. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 2 (1994) 97-99.
14. Parker MJ. “Focus on intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck”. British Editorial Society Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 34 (2010): 36-38.
15. Varley GW and Milner SA. “Wound drains in proximal femoral fracture surgery: a randomized prospective trial of 177 patients”. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 40 (1995): 416-418.
16. Wheeless Clifford R III. Wheeless Textbook of Orthopedics. Sliding Hip Screws vs. Unstable Fractures. Data Trace Internet Publishing (2017).
17. Crevoisier XM., et al. “Is suction drainage necessary after total joint arthroplasty? A prospective study”. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 117 (1998): 121-124.
18. Waugh TR and Stinchfield FE. “Suction drainage of orthopedic wounds”. American Journal of Orthopaedics 43 (1961): 939-946.
19. Cruse P J and Foord R. “A five year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds”. Archives of Surgery2 (1973): 206-210.
20. Reilly TJ., et al. “The use of postoperative suction drainage in total knee arthroplasty”. Clinical Orthopaedics 20 (1986): 238-242.
21. Kim YH., et al. “Drainage versus nondrainage in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasties”. Clinical Orthopaedics 347 (1998): 188-193.

Citation

Citation: Shareef S M Nada., et al. “A Prospective Study on the Efficacy of Closed Suction Drains in Fractures of the Hip Treated by Dynamic Hip Screw".Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 3.12 (2020): 58-67.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Shareef S M Nada., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.