Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34401935›Full record

Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

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

Sebastian Fischer, Charlotte Heusgen, Moamer Brkic, Oliver Neun, Alexander Klug, Reinhard Hoffmann, Sebastian Manegold

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastian FischerDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstr. 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany. sebastian.fischer@bgu-frankfurt.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9842-2249
Charlotte HeusgenDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstr. 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany.
Moamer BrkicOrthopaedic University Hospital Friedrichsheim, Frankfurt, Germany.
Oliver NeunDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstr. 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany.
Alexander KlugDepartment for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Reinhard HoffmannDepartment for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Sebastian ManegoldDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstr. 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany.
Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main · DEOrthopaedic University Hospital Friedrichsheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClosed 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.

methodsBetween 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.

resultsThe 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).

conclusionsBased 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.

Indexed as

Ankle JointDrainageAdultFemaleHumansMaleMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPainProspective StudiesSuctionAnkle jointArthroscopyClosed suction drainageFigure-of-eight-20

Identifiers

PMID34401935
OpenAlexW3193673777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.