A comparison of the use and non-use of closed suction wound drainage in open reduction and internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures

Utility of prophylactic closed suction drainage in open reduction and internal fixation for tibial plateau fracture

PURPOSE

The usefulness of closed suction drains (CSD) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of tibial plateau fractures is a contested topic. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of CSD in postoperative outcomes after tibial plateau fracture.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent primary repair of closed tibial plateau fractures via an anterolateral approach between June 2021 to May 2022 at a single academic center. Fifty-six patients were included and 28 received CSDs at time of surgery. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included. There was no significant difference in demographics, pre- and post-op hemoglobin, estimated blood loss during surgery, length of stay, postoperative MMEs and pain at 3 month follow-up, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), compartment syndrome, flexion contracture, use of incisional vac, infection rate, wound drainage, hematoma, neurologic pain, dehiscence, additional surgery, or range of motion at 3 months follow-up. We noted a significant difference in Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) on POD1, demonstrating greater pain in those in the CSD group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the use of CSD in ORIF of tibial plateau fractures may not be of significant prophylactic benefit. CSDs in ORIF patients were associated with increased early postoperative pain and had no identifiable benefits.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Value of closed suction drainage in arthroscopic and minimally invasive surgery of the ankle joint: a prospective randomised study

INTRODUCTION

Closed suction drainage is an established procedure in arthroscopic surgery. It is intended to reduce the retention of wound and irrigation fluids, which form the basis for postoperative swelling, pain, and infection. However, currently, there is no scientific review of the actual benefit of this procedure.

METHODS

Between 2020 and 2021, 84 patients (53 males, 31 females; mean age: 42 years) were prospectively randomised into this study. The patients underwent arthroscopic surgery of the ankle joint with (group A) or without (group B) insertion of a closed suction drain (42 patients per group). Assessments included upper ankle swelling using the figure-of-eight-20 method, pain preoperatively and 48 h postoperatively, and unexpected events within 6 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

The measurements performed 48 h postoperatively showed a mean circumferential increase of 1.38 cm (1.48 and 1.28 cm in groups A and B, respectively; p > 0.05) in all patients. The mean pain at rest, assessed using the visual analogue scale (maximum 10 points), was 2.7 and 2.4 in groups A and B, respectively (p > 0.05). Overall, two minor complications occurred: residual swelling in group A and persistent limitation of movement in group B. The average length of hospital stay was 2.4 days (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available data, the routine insertion of a closed suction drainage at the upper ankle does not offer any objective benefit and must be considered obsolete. From both a medical and an economic point of view, the decision to conduct this procedure should be justified on an individual basis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective randomised trial.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Eleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I² = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I² = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these. Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I² = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I² = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I² = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I² = 34%; two studies; 632 participants). Cost-effectiveness Six economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs  than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.