Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636687›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Closed suction surgical wound drainage after orthopaedic surgery.

M J Parker, V Livingstone, R Clifton, A McKee

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01608854 (Prospective, Randomized Study of the Utilization of Antibiotics and Drains in Spinal Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 100 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01608854 completednot on this mapstarted 2008, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Randomized Study of the Utilization of Antibiotics and Drains in Spinal Surgery

TypeobservationalSponsorNYU Langone HealthRan2008 to 2012Enrolled539ConditionsSurgical Wound Infection, Spinal Deformity, Spinal DegenerationArmsAntibiotic Protocol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 300 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Closed-suction drainage in thoracolumbar spinal surgery-clinical routine without evidence? a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Risk-benefit analysis of wound drain usage in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis with evidence summary.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. The current state of the evidence for the use of drains in spinal surgery: systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Wound drainage for lower limb arterial surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  11. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  12. Wound drainage after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Guideline
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Role of closed drain after multi-level posterior spinal surgery in adults: a randomised open-label superiority trial.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Trial
  20. Trial

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M J ParkerPeterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Orthopaedic Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK, PE3 6DA. martyn.parker@pbh-tr.nhs.uk
V Livingstone
R Clifton
A McKee
Peterborough City Hospital · GBUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClosed suction drainage systems are frequently used to drain fluids, particularly blood, from surgical wounds. The aim of these systems is to reduce the occurrence of wound haematomas and infection.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of closed suction drainage systems for orthopaedic surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2006), and contacted the Cochrane Wounds Group. We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), and MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006). Articles of all languages were considered. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing the use of closed suction drainage systems with no drainage systems for all types of elective and emergency orthopaedic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality, using a nine item scale, and extracted data. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled. MAIN

resultsThirty-six studies involving 5464 participants with 5697 surgical wounds were identified. The types of surgery involved were hip and knee replacement, shoulder surgery, hip fracture surgery, spinal surgery, cruciate ligament reconstruction, open meniscectomy and fracture fixation surgery. Pooling of results indicated no statistically significant difference in the incidence of wound infection, haematoma, dehiscence or re-operations between those allocated to drains and the un-drained wounds. Blood transfusion was required more frequently in those who received drains. The need for reinforcement of wound dressings and the occurrence of bruising were more common in the group without drains. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support the routine use of closed suction drainage in orthopaedic surgery. Further randomised trials with larger patient numbers are required for different operations before definite conclusions can be made for all types of orthopaedic operations.

Indexed as

HematomaHumansOrthopedic ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuctionSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID17636687
PMCPMC8408575
OpenAlexW2163610279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.