Labek G, Böhler N
Orthopädische Abteilung, Allg. Krankenhaus Linz.
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1998 Sep-Oct;136(5):433-8. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1053680.
There is a difference in the use of redon drainage following hip arthroplasty worldwide. The aim of the study was to find the best version.
In a prospective randomized study including 158 patients with coxarthrosis we implanted cementless Alloclassic hip-endoprostheses and registered consumption of blood, blood loss, hemoglobin level, subcutaneuos hematoma, swelling of the proximal thigh, bleeding and exsudation of the wound in four groups supplied with three, two (subcutaneously and subfascial) and one (subcutaneously or subfascial) drainage with compression bandage and one group with two redons (subcutaneously and subfascial) without compression bandage. For prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis we used low dose heparin.
We could demonstrate, that the application of two redons one subcutaneously and one subfascial gave the best result. Compared to the conventional procedure with three redons we achieved a reduction of 47% of blood units, a significant reduction of exsudation and bleeding out of the wound, subcutaneous hematomas and a reduced swelling of the proximal leg in addition to better clinical conditions of the patients. The reason is a more accelerated stop of the bleeding out of the spongy bone. The application of one drain subcutaneously or subfascial showed no further reduction of blood loss, but an increase of wound exsudation and bleeding out the wound and an increase of subcutaneous hematomas. Sufficient external compression of the area of operation by a compression bandage is very important. Disadvantages as a result of changing the way of drainage have not been detected.
The use of two Redons one subcutaneously and one subfascial showed an obvious benefit without any clinical disadvantage compared to 3 redons or no drainage.
全球范围内髋关节置换术后引流管的使用存在差异。本研究的目的是找出最佳方式。
在一项纳入158例髋关节病患者的前瞻性随机研究中,我们植入了非骨水泥型Alloclassic髋关节假体,并记录了四组患者的输血情况、失血量、血红蛋白水平、皮下血肿、大腿近端肿胀、伤口出血和渗出情况。这四组分别采用三根引流管、两根引流管(皮下和筋膜下各一根)、一根引流管(皮下或筋膜下)并加用加压绷带,还有一组采用两根引流管(皮下和筋膜下各一根)但不加用加压绷带。为预防深静脉血栓形成,我们使用了低剂量肝素。
我们能够证明,皮下和筋膜下各放置一根引流管的方式效果最佳。与传统的使用三根引流管的方法相比,我们减少了47%的输血量,显著减少了伤口渗出和出血、皮下血肿,减轻了大腿近端肿胀,患者的临床状况也更好。原因是海绵骨出血的止血过程加快。皮下或筋膜下放置一根引流管并未进一步减少失血量,反而增加了伤口渗出和出血以及皮下血肿。通过加压绷带对手术区域进行充分的外部加压非常重要。未发现因改变引流方式而产生的不利影响。
与使用三根引流管或不进行引流相比,皮下和筋膜下各使用一根引流管显示出明显的优势,且无任何临床劣势。