Abstract
Introduction: Primary total hip replacement remains one of the commonest orthopaedic procedures performed. It is yet to be clearly demonstrated whether use of a postoperative drain is of benefit in these procedures.
Methods: We carried out a prospective randomised study comparing the use of autologous reinfusion drains, closed suction drains or no drain to determine their influence on allogenic blood transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay and infection rates. Stratification was carried out for confounding factors.
Results: 153 patients were recruited into the study and randomised to one of the three closely matched groups. There was no significant difference between the mean intra-operative blood loss or post-operative haemaglo-bin levels between the 3 groups. 42% of the suction drain group required post-operative transfusion as compared to 17% of the reinfusion drain group and 12% of the group with no drains. This difference was highly significant (P=0.02) Mean time for the wound to become dry was 3 days, 3.9 days and 4 days in the no drain, re-transfusion drain and suction drain groups respectively. This difference was statistically significant (P=0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean length of inpatient stay.
Discussion: This study demonstrates a significantly higher transfusion rate with closed suction drains compared to reinfusion drains or no drains. With the drive to reduce hospital stay our study supports the considered use of no drain or a reinfusion drain.
Correspondence should be addressed to BHS c/o BOA, at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE, England.
