ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy/significance and incidence of exposure to body fluids between the active closed drainage system and passive open drainage system in patients who underwent urologic surgeryMATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective and emergency open urologic surgery that required wound drainage were included. A daily data collection completed by the medical and the nursing staff was performed. Patients with dirty wounds were excludedRESULTS: Sixty-four patients were entered in the study. After exclusion, 56 patients [Group I (Passive drainage) = 27; Group 2 (Active drainage) = 29)] were evaluated for the performance of wound drainage systems. The drain-related complications of group 1 and group 2 were 26 percent and 10 percent, respectively [P 0.5 (NS)]. Change of dressing was more frequent in group 1 than in group 2 patients [P .000 (S)]. There were 567 (group 1CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of passive open drain and active closed drain systems were comparable. The risk of exposure of healthcare personnel to potentially harmful body fluids was less when closed suction drain was used in patients who underwent urologic surgery. (Author)