BACKGROUND

Owing to its association with prosthetic joint infection, persistent wound drainage has become an important clinical entity after THA or TKA. The association between venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and persistent wound drainage has not been extensively reported before but has potentially important clinical implications.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the type of VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin or aspirin) used after hip arthroplasty or knee arthroplasty associated with a higher risk of persistent wound drainage? (2) In patients who experience persistent wound drainage, is the type of VTE prophylaxis associated with a longer time taken to achieve a dry wound? (3) Is type of VTE prophylaxis associated with a higher risk of joint-related reoperation within 6 months?

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from an earlier cluster-randomized trial conducted through the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry; data were drawn from two participating hospitals from that study. According to the trial's allocation sequence, the two participating hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg daily) as VTE prophylaxis to all patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for 35 days after the procedure and for all patients undergoing knee arthroplasty for 14 days afterwards. Crossover to the alternate prophylaxis group occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first arm. Between April 2019 and December 2020, 1339 of 1679 eligible patients were included in this study; 82% (707 of 861) of eligible patients were allocated to the enoxaparin group and 77% (632 of 818) of eligible patients we allocated to the aspirin group. The mean age in both groups was 67 ± 10 years and the mean BMI was 32 ± 7 kg/m 2 . There was a higher proportion of male patients (43% [302 of 707] versus 36% [227 of 632]; p = 0.01), hip arthroplasties (36% [254 of 707] versus 29% [182 of 632]; p = 0.006), and patients receiving subcuticular closure (62% [441 of 707] versus 33% [208 of 631]; p < 0.001) in the enoxaparin group than in the aspirin group. Patients were monitored for wound drainage on each postoperative day until discharge, and this was recorded in the medical record once per day. Assessors were not blinded to the type of prophylaxis each patient received. Persistent wound drainage was defined as any wound drainage beyond Postoperative Day 3. For patients who experienced persistent wound drainage, the time taken to achieve a dry wound was defined as the number of days beyond Postoperative Day 3 for the wound to become dry. Logistic regression was used to determine whether the prophylaxis type was associated with persistent wound drainage. For patients with persistent wound drainage, the median time of drainage was compared between groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The number of patients undergoing a joint-related reoperation within 6 months was identified through data linkage to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and electronic record review, and was compared using a Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

We found no difference between the enoxaparin and aspirin groups in terms of the percentage of patients who had persistent wound drainage (9% [65 of 707] versus 8% [49 of 632], odds ratio 1.2 [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.8]; p = 0.40). For patients receiving subcuticular closure, after controlling for other potentially confounding variables, including age, sex, BMI, preoperative anticoagulant use, and type of arthroplasty, enoxaparin was associated with a higher risk of persistent wound drainage than aspirin (OR 3.6 [95% CI 1.5 to 10.6]; p = 0.009). For patients receiving a skin staple closure, after controlling for the same variables above, we found enoxaparin was not associated with a higher risk of persistent wound drainage (OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.7 to 1.9]; p = 0.66). For patients who experienced persistent wound drainage patients (114: 65 in the enoxaparin group and 49 in the aspirin group), there was no difference in the median (interquartile range) time taken to achieve a dry wound (enoxaparin: 1 day [IQR 1 to 2 days], aspirin: 1 day [IQR 1 to 3 days]; p = 0.22). There was no difference in the risk of joint-related reoperation within 6 months between enoxaparin (2.4% [17 of 707]) and aspirin (2.2% [14 of 632], OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.4]; p = 0.86).

CONCLUSION

Enoxaparin was not associated with an increased risk of persistent wound drainage compared with aspirin for all patients included in this study. Enoxaparin may be associated with a higher risk of drainage for patients receiving subcuticular closure. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously, given the small sample size in this analysis. The duration of drainage was short regardless of the prophylaxis used, and enoxaparin was not associated with an increased risk of joint-related reoperation. These findings should not deter clinicians from using enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after hip or knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.