The usage of drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: best evidence selection and risk of bias considerations

Background Numerous systematic reviews investigating the benefit of the usage of drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty have been published with divergent conclusions. We aim to determine the best available evidence and consider risk of bias of these articles and to provide recommendations. Methods A systematic search of systematic reviews published through to May 2020 was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Methodological quality, risk of bias and best evidence choice of included articles were evaluated by AMSTAR instrument, ROBIS tool and Jadad decision algorithm, respectively. We selected systematic reviews with high methodological quality and low risk of bias ultimately as best evidence. Results Twelve meta-analyses were included lastly. According to the ROBIS tool, seven of the included systematic reviews were with low risk of bias and five with high risk of bias. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that two reviews conducted by Zan et al. for hip and Si et al. et al. for knee were selected as the best evidence, with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias. Conclusions Ten systematic reviews were included as low-quality with only two high-quality studies. Based on the current available evidence, we have insufficient confidence to draw conclusion that whether to use closed suction drainage for both total knee and hip arthroplasty. To verify the necessity and benefit of using closed suction drainage after primary total knee and hip arthroplasty, and develop exact recommendations, further studies are still required.

Excessive Blood Loss After Revision Hip Arthroplasty is Related to the use of Closed Suction Drainage: A Prospective Randomized Study

Background: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.Material and Methods: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.Results: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. Conclusion: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.

Effects of disusing closed suction drainage in simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study

Purpose Increased blood loss remains a major drawback of simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty (SBTHA). We examined the effects of disusing closed suction drainage (CSD) on postoperative blood loss and transfusion requirement in cementless SBTHA. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted with a consecutive series of cementless SBTHAs performed by a single surgeon between January 2014 and March 2017. The surgeon routinely used CSD until May 2015 and refrained from CSD in all primary THAs thereafter. This study included SBTHAs with intravenous administration of tranexamic acid (TXA). Postoperative hemoglobin drop, blood loss, transfusion rate, pain scores, complication rates, and implant survivorships were compared between the groups of SBTHA with and without CSD. The minimum follow-up duration was 1 year. Results Among the 110 patients (220 hips), 46 (92 hips) and 64 (128 hips) underwent SBTHA with and without CSD, respectively. Maximum hemoglobin drop (mean, 4.8 vs. 3.9 g/dL; P = 0.001), calculated blood loss (mean, 1530 vs. 1190 mL; P<0.001), transfusion rate (45.7% vs. 21.9%; P = 0.008), and length of hospital stay (mean, 6.6 vs. 5.8 days; P = 0.004) were significantly lower in patients without CSD. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scales and wound complication rates. The mean Harris Hip scores at final follow-up (92.5 vs. 92.1; P = 0.775) and implant survivorships with an end-point of any revision at 4 years (98.9% vs. 98.4%; log-rank, P = 0.766) were similar between groups. Conclusions Disusing CSD significantly reduced postoperative blood loss and transfusion requirement without increasing postoperative pain and surgical wound complications in cementless SBTHA with concurrent administration of intravenous TXA.