{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028481012658227847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00949367088607595, 'mean_word_length': 5.426829268292683, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Systematic review and meta-analysis of closed suction drainage versus non-drainage in primary hip arthroplasty.

The routine use of drains in surgery has been dogmatically instituted in some disciplines. Orthopaedic surgery is one such sub-speciality. The use of postoperative closed suction drainage in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become increasingly controversial with multiple randomised control trials performed to assess the benefit to outcome in THA. The hypothesis of this systematic review is that closed suction drainage does not infer a benefit and increase transfusion requirements of primary total hip arthroplasty patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of the available literature was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE using a combination of MeSH terms and Boolean operators. All data analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.1. Sixteen studies (n=2705) were included in the analysis. Post-operative closed suction drainage was found to increase total blood loss and blood transfusion requirements (p<0.05). Surgical site infection demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.82). No significant difference in haematoma formation between groups (p=0.19) was elicited. The routine use of closed suction drainage systems post primary hip arthroplasty is not supported by this meta-analysis. However, the heterogeneity between studies does limit the accuracy of the meta-analysis.