A MODIFIED SUCTION DRAINAGE DEVICE.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5529792 | BioStudies | 1995-01-01
REPOSITORIES: biostudies
Similar Datasets
Project description:TKA can involve substantial bleeding, and the issue regarding whether vacuum drainage should be used during TKA continues to be debated as both methods have disadvantages.We therefore asked whether subcutaneous indwelling vacuum drainage is advantageous over intraarticular indwelling vacuum drainage in terms of blood drainage, bleeding-related complications, and functional outcomes in primary TKA.We randomized 111 patients undergoing TKAs to have either a subcutaneous indwelling or an intraarticular indwelling catheter and compared the two groups for blood loss (hemoglobin decrease, transfusion requirements, hypotension episode), incidence of wound problems (requirements for dressing reinforcement, oozing, hematoma, hemarthrosis, ecchymosis, infection), and functional outcomes (recovery of motion arc, American Knee Society, WOMAC, and SF-36 scores) at 12 months after surgery.The mean vacuum drainage volume was less in the subcutaneous indwelling group than in the intraarticular indwelling group (140 mL versus 352 mL). The groups were similar in terms of decreases in hemoglobin after 2 and 5 days (3.0 versus 3.3 g/dL and 3.3 versus 3.7 g/dL, respectively), allogenic transfusion requirements (4% versus 11%), incidence of wound problems, and functional scores.The data suggest subcutaneous indwelling closed-suction drainage is a reasonable alternative to intraarticular indwelling closed-suction drainage and to no suction drainage.Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
2010-01-01 | S-EPMC2895852 | BioStudies
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>The use of closed-suction drainage systems after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common practice in India, but with no consensus on its use. In this retrospective study, we compared whether clamped or unclamped drainage has any advantages over the other in unilateral TKA.<h4>Methods</h4>Group-A (n?=?351) had an unclamped drain removed at 24?h postoperative, with measurement of total drainage at 24?h between January 2011 and February 2013. Group B (n?=?349) had drains kept for a total of 8?h-clamped for the first 4?h and unclamped for a further 4, between March 2013 to September 2016. Drainage volume, as well as the hemodynamic markers-hemoglobin (Hb) drop, transfusion rate were evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>Mean drain output in Group- A was significantly higher than Group- B (215.64?ml versus 28.34?ml). The postoperative Hb was significantly higher in Group-B (11.46?g/dl versus 10.57?g/dl). Mean Hb drop was significantly higher in Group A (2.16??g/dl versus 1.18?g/dl). The transfusion rates were lower in Group-B, though not statistically significant.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The 4- hour clamping method effectively reduces drain output and fall in hemoglobin. For those who continue using closed suction drains, clamping could prove to be an effective way of reducing post-operative blood loss and the need for transfusions.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC6985007 | BioStudies
Project description:The morbidity of pancreatic resection remains high, with pancreatic fistula being the most common cause. The important question is whether any postoperative treatment adjustment may prevent the development of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulae. Recent studies have shown that intraabdominal drains and manipulation using them are of great importance. Although authors of a few retrospective reports have described good results of pancreatic resection without the use of intraabdominal drains, a recent prospective randomized trial showed that routine elimination of drains in pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with poor outcome. An important issue arises as to which type of drain is most suitable for pancreatic resection. Two types of surgical drains exist: open drains and closed drains. Open drains are considered obsolete nowadays because of frequent retrograde infection. Closed drains include two types: passive gravity drains and closed-suction drains. Closed-suction drains are more effective, as they remove fluid from the abdominal cavity under light pressure. However, some surgeons believe that closed-suction drains represent a potential hazard to patients and that negative pressure might increase the risk of pancreatic fistulae. Nobody has yet specifically dealt with the question of which kind of drainage is most appropriate in pancreatic surgery.The aim of the DRAins in PAncreatic surgery (DRAPA) trial is to compare the closed-suction drain versus the closed passive gravity drain in pancreatic resection. DRAPA is a dual-centre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint is the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula; the secondary endpoint is postoperative morbidity with follow-up of 3 months.No study to date has compared different types of drains in pancreatic surgery. This study is designed to answer the question whether any particular type of drain might lower the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula or other complications.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01988519. Registered 13 November 2013.
2015-01-01 | S-EPMC4470087 | BioStudies
Project description:Study Design?Systematic review. Objective?Determine whether closed suction wound drains decrease the incidence of postoperative complications compared with no drain use in patients undergoing spine surgery for lumbar degenerative conditions. Methods?Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up through January 22, 2015, to identify studies comparing the use of closed suction wound drains with no drains in spine surgery for lumbar degenerative conditions. Outcomes assessed included the cumulative incidence of epidural hematoma, superficial and deep wound infection, and postoperative blood transfusion. The overall strength of evidence across studies was based on precepts outlined by the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. Results?Five heterogeneous studies, three randomized controlled trials, and two cohort studies form the evidence basis for this report. There was no difference in the incidence of hematoma, superficial wound infection, or deep infection in patients with compared with patients without closed suction wound drains after lumbar surgery. The upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval for hematoma ranged from 1.1 to 16.7%; for superficial infection, 1.0 to 7.3%; and for deep infection, 1.0 to 7.1%. One observational study reported a 3.5-fold increase in the risk of blood transfusion in patients with a drain. The overall strength of evidence for these findings is considered low or insufficient. Conclusions?Conclusions from this systematic review are limited by the quality of included studies that assessed the use of closed suction wound drains in lumbar spine surgeries for degenerative conditions. We believe that spine surgeons should not routinely rely on closed suction wound drains in lumbar spine surgery until a higher level of evidence becomes available to support its use.
1000-01-01 | S-EPMC4671891 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND:Seroma formation is a common complication after breast cancer surgery and can lead to delayed wound healing, infection, patient discomfort and repeated visits to the outpatient clinic. Mastectomy combined with flap fixation is becoming standard practice and is currently combined with closed-suction drainage. There is evidence showing that closed-suction drainage may be insufficient in preventing seroma formation. There is reasonable doubt whether there is still place for closed-suction drainage after mastectomy when flap fixation is performed. We hypothesize that mastectomy combined with flap fixation and closed suction drainage does not cause a significant lower incidence of seroma aspirations, when compared to mastectomy and flap fixation alone. Furthermore, we expect that patients without drainage will experience significantly less discomfort and comparable rates of surgical site infections. METHODS:This is a randomized controlled trial in female breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and flap fixation using sutures with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Patients will be eligible for inclusion if they are older than 18?years, have an indication for mastectomy with or without sentinel procedure. Exclusion criteria are modified radical mastectomy, direct breast reconstruction, previous history of radiation therapy of the unilateral breast, breast conserving therapy and inability to give informed consent. A total of 250 patients will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: mastectomy combined with flap fixation and closed-suction drainage or mastectomy combined with flap fixation without drainage. Follow-up will be conducted up to six months postoperatively. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients undergoing one or more seroma aspirations. Secondary outcome measures consist of the number of invasive interventions, surgical site infection, quality of life measured using the SF-12 Health Survey, cosmesis, pain and number of additional outpatient department visits. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial has been conducted comparing flap fixation with and without closed-suction drainage with seroma aspiration as the primary outcome. This study could result in finding evidence that supports performing mastectomy without closed-suction drainage. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was approved by the medical ethical committee of Zuyderland Medical Center METC-Z on 20 March 2019 (METCZ20190023). The SARA Trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as per July 2019, Identifier: NCT04035590 .
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7412663 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND:After general thoracic surgery, a chest tube is usually placed for closed drainage to expel gas accumulation in the thoracic cavity and fluid accumulation to promote lung re-expansion. It can also be observed whether there is active bleeding after the operation and whether there is a pulmonary leak. The conventional drainage of the chest cavity is connected with a water-sealed drainage bottle, and the patient condition is judged by observing the drainage situation and the fluctuation of the water column, which is a very classic method. However, the water-sealed bottle has the disadvantages of being easy to overturn and inconvenient to carry, which is not conducive to the early activities of patients. Under the concept of accelerated rehabilitation, our center applied a new type of anhydrous thorax negative pressure drainage device and achieved good results. The purpose of this study was to observe the effect of a new type of anhydrous thoracic negative pressure drainage device in patients after thoracic surgery. METHODS:Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent lung surgery in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Medical College from January 2018 to December 2019, patients were divided into two groups. One group of patients used a traditional closed-chest drainage water-sealed bottle as a control group, and the other group used a new type of anhydrous negative-pressure drainage bottle as an experimental group. Patients' gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, smoking history, surgical incisions and surgical methods, and the length of hospital stay and postoperative hospital stay were calculated. RESULTS:There were no statistical differences in age, gender, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, smoking history), scope of surgery, and duration of surgery between the two groups of patients, but there were statistical differences in surgical incisions between the two groups of patients (P=0.01). We found that patients using the new waterless negative pressure drainage device were shorter than patients with water negative pressure drainage device in terms of postoperative hospital stay and total hospitalization time, and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.02, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS:The new type of anhydrous thoracic negative pressure drainage device has a good effect on the rapid recovery and advancement after thoracic surgery.
| S-EPMC7309536 | BioStudies
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is the most common cause of major morbidity following pancreatic resection. Intra-abdominal drains are frequently positioned adjacent to the pancreatic anastomosis or transection margin at the time of surgery to aid in detection and management of CR-POPF. Drains can either evacuate fluid by passive gravity (PG) or be attached to a closed suction (CS) system using negative pressure. There is controversy as to whether one of these two systems is superior. The objective of this review is to identify and compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and resource utilisation associated with PG and CS drainage following pancreatic resections.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2019, to identify interventional and observational studies comparing PG and CS drains following pancreatic resection. The primary outcome is POPF as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula in 2017. Secondary outcomes include postoperative AE, resource utilisation (length of stay, return to emergency department, readmission and reintervention), time to drain removal and quality of life. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed independently, by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed statistically appropriate. Subgroup analysis by study design will be performed. Study heterogeneity will be calculated with the ?<sup>2</sup> test and reported as I<sup>2</sup> statistics. Statistical analyses will be conducted and displayed using RevMan V.5.3 ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The results of this study will be submitted to relevant conferences for presentation and peer-reviewed journals for publication.<h4>Prospero registration number</h4>CRD42019123647.
2019-01-01 | S-EPMC6756355 | BioStudies
Project description:Background Development of the flexible CO2 fiber has presented new opportunities for the use of precision laser cutting in cranial procedures. The efficacy of the CO2 scalpel is further enhanced by combining it with a fluid removal suction capability. Objectives We report our experience with a novel CO2 laser-suction device. Methods The novel laser-suction device was designed in conjunction with OmniGuide Inc. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA). We performed a case review of its use in firm tumors that were resistant to resection by bipolar, suction, and ultrasonic aspirator. Results The laser-suction device was applied in three tumors where resection with ultrasonic aspiration failed. Tumor resection using the laser-suction device was successful in all three cases. There were no complications related to the laser-suction device. There were no instances of intraoperative device malfunction. Discussion The CO2 laser combined with suction is a useful instrument for resection of firm tumors that prove to be resistant to ultrasonic aspiration. We also find it to be useful in settings where precise tissue incisions are desired with minimal manipulation. In our experience, the surgical efficiency of the CO2 laser is improved by the laser-suction device. This device allows the surgeon to utilize a suction device and laser in a single hand and enables concurrent use of bipolar electrocautery without repeated instrument changes.
2013-01-01 | S-EPMC3866789 | BioStudies
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether external suction is more advantageous than water seal in patients undergoing selective pulmonary resection (SPR) for lung neoplasm. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Whether external suction should be routinely applied in postoperative chest drainage is still unclear, particularly for lung neoplasm patients. To most surgeons, the decision is based on their clinical experience. METHODS: Randomized control trials were selected. The participants were patients undergoing SPR with lung neoplasm. Lung volume reduction surgery and pneumothorax were excluded. Suction versus non-suction for the intervention. The primary outcome was the incidence of persistent air leak (PAL). The definition of PAL was air leak for more than 3-7 days. The secondary outcomes included air leak duration, time of drainage, postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative pneumothorax. Studies were identified from literature collections through screening. Bias was analyzed and meta-analysis was used. RESULTS: From the 1824 potentially relevant trials, 6 randomized control trials involving 676 patients were included. There was no difference between external suction and water seal in decreasing the incidence of PAL [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-2.16; z?=?1.10; P?=?0.27]. Regarding secondary outcomes, there were no differences in time of drainage (95% CI-0.36-1.56, P?=?0.22), postoperative hospital stay (95% CI -.31-.54, P?=?0.87) or incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (95% CI 0.18-.02, P?=?0.05) between external suction and water seal. CONCLUSIONS: For participants, no differences are identified in terms of PAL incidence, drainage time, length of postoperative hospital stay or incidence of postoperative pneumothorax between external suction and water seal. The bias analysis should be emphasized. To the limitations of the bias and methodological differences among the included studies, we have no recommendation on whether external suction should be routinely applied after lung neoplasm SPR. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: None.
2013-01-01 | S-EPMC3706622 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Routine drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS:An electronic search of Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to June 2013 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The odds ratio for qualitative variables and standardized mean difference for continuous variables were calculated. RESULTS:Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1939 patients randomized to a drain (960) versus no drain (979). The morbidity rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.10; P = .003). The wound infection rate was lower in the no drain group (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 4.51; P = .01). Abdominal pain 24 hours after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (standardized mean difference, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 3.34; P < .0001). No significant difference was present with respect to the presence and quantity of subhepatic fluid collection, shoulder tip pain, parenteral ketorolac consumption, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay. CONCLUSION:This study was unable to prove that drains were useful in reducing complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
1000-01-01 | S-EPMC4266231 | BioStudies