A Comparison of the Postoperative Complications between Two Drainage Methods after Total Knee Arthroplasty | ||
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
مقاله 9، دوره 6، شماره 1، فروردین 2018، صفحه 47-51 اصل مقاله (467.49 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2017.17371.1442 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Fardin Mirzatolooei* ؛ Ali Tabrizi؛ Maryamsadat Mokaram Gargari | ||
Urmia university of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran | ||
چکیده | ||
Background: The role of wound drainage after total knee arthroplasty is still considered controversial as although closed drainage systems have been believed to be effective in decreasing the post-operative complications, they could also facilitate the bleeding and increase the rate of transfusion and infection. We have conducted the current study to compare the outcomes superficial subcutaneous, one deep, and two deep drain techniques after total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Between 2014 and 2015 sixty consecutive patients were prospectively selected and underwent primary total knee arthroplasty. Patients randomized to receive one superficial, one deep and two deep drains at the end of operation. Tourniquet was used and opened at the end of the surgery after dressing. Patients were studied for volume of blood loss, hemoglobin drop, number of transfusion, and any complications. Knee range of motion and diameter were measured and compared with contralateral side in all cases at the end of the third day. Results: There was no statistical difference regarding red blood cell volume loss, Hb drop, and transfusion rate between groups. Patients in one superficial group had the most sever post-operative ecchymosis. Knee flexion and swelling were the same in all groups. Patients in one superficial drain group had the worst VAS for the pain. Need for early blood transfusion was significantly higher in two deep drain group. In one deep drain group returned back to operating room for sever hemarthrosis and wound dehiscence was occurred in a patient. One patient in one deep group had also developed mild thrombo-emboli. Conclusion: Regarding the blood volume loss after total knee arthroplasty there is no difference between superficial drainage and even more effective intra-articular techniques. Outcome and complication rates are the same. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
Hemorrhage؛ Knee arthroplasty؛ Transfusion | ||
مراجع | ||
1. Zhang XN, Wu G, Xu RZ, Bai XZ. [Closed suction drainage or non-drainage for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2012; 50(12):1119–25. 2. Sun JG, Zhai S, Yuan H. [Systematic review of the earlier safety of closed suction drainage for knee arthroplasty]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009; 47(20):1544–9. 3. Chandratreya A, Giannikas K, Livesley P. To drain or not drain: literature versus practice. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1998; 43(6):404–6. 4. Demirkale I, Tecimel O, Sesen H, Kilicarslan K, Altay M, Dogan M. Nondrainage decreases blood transfusion need and infection rate in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(5):993–7. 5. Matziolis G, Roehner E, Windis C, Wagner A. The volume of the human knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015; 135(10):1401-3. 6. Yamada K, Imaizumi T, Uemura M, Takada N, Kim Y. Comparison between 1-hour and 24-hour drain clamping using diluted epinephrine solution after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(4):458-62 7. Larsson J, Lewis DH, Liljedahl SO, Löfström JB. Early biochemical and hemodynamic changes after operation in a bloodless field. Eur Surg Res. 1977; 9(5):311-20. 8. Yang JH, Yoon JR, Dahuja A, Song S. Subcutaneous versus intraarticular closed suction indwelling drainage after total knee arthroplasty: a randomised control trial. Indian J Orthop. 2016; 50(1):59-64 9. Drosos GI, Ververidis A, Valkanis C, Tripsianis G, Stavroulakis E, Vogiatzaki T, et al. A randomized comparative study of topical versus intravenous tranexamic acid administration in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) total knee replacement. J Orthop. 2016; 13(3):127-31. 10. Keyhani S, Esmailiejah AA, Abbasian MR, Safdari F. Which route of tranexamic acid administration is more effective to reduce blood loss following total knee arthroplasty? Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016; 4(1):65-9. 11. Goyal N, Kaul R, Harris IA, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ. Is there a need for routine post-operative hemoglobin level estimation in total knee arthroplasty with tranexamic acid use? Knee. 2016; 23(2):310-3. 12. Ho D, Jagdeo J, Waldorf HA. is there a role for arnica and bromelain in prevention of post-procedure ecchymosis or edema? A systematic review of the literature. Dermatol Surg. 2016; 42(4):445-63. 13. Kluger MT, Lewis G, Rice D, McNair P. Psychological rather than pharmacological interventions for effective prevetion of pain after knee joint replacement? Br J Anaesth. 2016; 116(1):150. 14. Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SFMPQ- 2): A Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation Study of the Persian Version in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015; 3(1):45-50. 15. Si HB, Yang TM, Zeng Y, Shen B. No clear benefit or drawback to the use of closed drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17(1):183-91. 16. Abolghasemian M, Huether TW, Soever LJ, Drexler M, MacDonald MP, Backstein DJ. The use of a closedsuction drain in revision knee arthroplasty may not be necessary: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(7):1544-8. 17. Yang JH, Yoon JR, Dahuja A, Song S. Subcutaneous versus intraarticular closed suction indwelling drainage after total knee arthroplasty: a randomised control trial. Indian J Orthop. 2016; 50(1):59-64. 18. Lee QJ, Mak WP, Hau WS, Yeung ST, Wong YC, Wai YL. Short duration and low suction pressure drain versus no drain following total knee replacement. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015; 23(3):278-81. 19. Watanabe T, Muneta T, Yagishita K, Hara K, Koga H, Sekiya I. Closed Suction drainage is not necessary for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study on simultaneous bilateral surgeries of a mean follow-up of 5.5 years. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(3):641-5. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 520 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 788 |