ArticleCureus2023
Is It Safe to Perform Revision Hip Arthroplasty Without Suction Drains?
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational study exploring the association between sexes and perioperative morbidities after aseptic hip revision arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background There is a number of studies showing no significant benefit of using drains after primary hip arthroplasty. However, there is no consensus in the literature about the usage of drains in revision hip replacement. This study aims to assess the effect of drains in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of all consecutive revision hip replacement surgeries performed at our unit over a five-month period (November 2018 to March 2019). Case notes, laboratory investigations, and operative records were reviewed. The effects of drains on postoperative hemoglobin (Hb), transfusion rate, and complications were analyzed. Results Overall, 92 patients were analyzed who underwent revision hip replacement during the study period. There were 46 male and 46 female patients with a mean age of 72 years. Aseptic loosening was the most common indication for the revision (41 patients) followed by instability (21 patients), infection (11 patients), and periprosthetic fractures (eight patients). Seventy-two patients had no drains while suction drains were used in 20 patients. Both groups were similar regarding age, sex, and indications for revision surgery. There was a significantly higher drop in postoperative Hb in patients with drains than those without drains (33 g/L: 27 g/L, p=0.03). There were significantly more blood transfusions in patients with drains as compared to those without drains (15%: 8%, relative risk 1.8, and odds ratio 1.94). There was no difference in both groups with regard to returning to the theater. Discussion Use of suctions drains in revision hip surgery was associated with increased postoperative blood loss and increased requirement for postoperative blood transfusion. Revision hip surgery without routine usage of suction drains did not increase wound complications. Conclusion Revision surgery without routine usage of drains is safe and may decrease postoperative blood loss and the rate of transfusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.