Parker Martyn J, Roberts Chris P, Hay Douglas
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Peterborough District Hospital, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, England.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jun;86(6):1146-52. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200406000-00005.
The use of closed-suction drainage systems after total joint replacement is a common practice. The theoretical advantages for the use of drains is a reduction in the occurrence of wound hematomas and infection. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine, on the basis of the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the advantages and adverse effects of surgical drains.
All randomized trials, as far as we know, that compared patients managed with closed-suction drainage systems and those managed without a drain following elective hip and knee arthroplasty were considered. The trials were identified with use of searches of the Cochrane Collaboration with no restriction on languages or source. Two authors independently extracted the data, and the methods of all identified trials were assessed.
Eighteen studies involving 3495 patients with 3689 wounds were included in the analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no significant difference between the wounds treated with a drain and those treated without a drain with respect to the occurrence of wound infection (relative risk, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.14), wound hematoma (relative risk, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 4.07), or reoperations for wound complications (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 1.99). A drained wound was associated with a significantly greater need for transfusion (relative risk, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.72). Reinforcement of wound dressings was required more frequently in the group managed without drains. No difference between the groups was seen with respect to limb-swelling, venous thrombosis, or hospital stay.
Studies to date have indicated that closed suction drainage increases the transfusion requirements after elective hip and knee arthroplasty and has no major benefits. Further randomized trials with use of larger numbers of patients with full reporting of outcomes are indicated before the absence of any benefit, particularly for the outcome of wound infection, can be proved.
全关节置换术后使用封闭式吸引引流系统是一种常见做法。使用引流管的理论优势在于减少伤口血肿和感染的发生。本荟萃分析的目的是根据随机对照试验的证据,确定手术引流管的优势和不良反应。
我们检索了所有已知的随机试验,这些试验比较了择期髋膝关节置换术后使用封闭式吸引引流系统的患者和未使用引流管的患者。通过检索Cochrane协作网来识别这些试验,对语言和来源没有限制。两位作者独立提取数据,并评估所有纳入试验的方法。
分析纳入了18项研究,涉及3495例患者的3689个伤口。汇总结果表明,在伤口感染发生率(相对危险度,0.73;95%置信区间,0.47至1.14)、伤口血肿(相对危险度,1.73;95%置信区间,0.74至4.07)或因伤口并发症进行再次手术(相对危险度,0.52;95%置信区间,0.13至1.99)方面,使用引流管治疗的伤口与未使用引流管治疗的伤口之间没有显著差异。引流的伤口输血需求显著更高(相对危险度,1.43;95%置信区间,1.19至1.72)。未使用引流管处理的组更频繁地需要加强伤口敷料。两组在肢体肿胀、静脉血栓形成或住院时间方面没有差异。
迄今为止的研究表明,择期髋膝关节置换术后使用封闭式吸引引流会增加输血需求,且没有主要益处。在能够证明没有任何益处,特别是对于伤口感染的结果之前,需要进行更多使用大量患者并全面报告结果的进一步随机试验。