Comparative study of suction drainage placement in cementless hip replacement among patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The use of drains reportedly does not improve surgical outcomes after hip replacement. There is still a lack of strict recommendations for drain placement after primary hip replacement. This study aimed to assess the safety of not using suction drainage after primary hip replacement in a population of patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, all patients were qualified for primary hip replacement and were divided into two groups: with and without drainage. The inclusion criterion was idiopathic hip osteoarthritis. The exclusion criteria were secondary coxarthrosis, autoimmune disease, coagulopathy, venous/arterial thrombosis, hepatic/renal insufficiency, cement, or hybrid endoprostheses. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical, laboratory, and radiographic parameters were measured for the first three days after surgery. Hematoma collection, due to extended thromboprophylaxis, in the joint and soft tissues was evaluated precisely. The patients underwent follow-up for 30 days. RESULTS: The final analysis included a total of 100 patients. We did not find any significant statistical differences between groups in terms of hip fluid collection (9.76 vs. 10.33 mm, with and without drainage, respectively; mean difference, 0.6 mm; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.8 to 3.9; p = 0.653), estimated blood loss (1126 vs. 1224 ml; mean difference, 97.1 ml; 95 % CI -84.1 to 278.2; p = 0.59), and hemoglobin levels on postoperative day 3 (11.05 vs. 10.85 g/dl; mean difference, 0.2; 95 % CI -2.1 to 2.5; p = 0.53). In addition, the other parameters did not show significant differences between groups. Notably, two cases of early infections were observed in the no-drainage group, whereas there were no such complications in the drainage group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of closed suction drainage after primary hip replacement is a safe procedure in patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis. Further research is warranted to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was successfully registered retrospectively at Clinicaltrial.gov with the identification number NCT04333264  03 April 2020.

Two-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss: Results from 182 cases.

The optimum treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip with substantial bone defects remains controversial. A retrospective assessment was performed for 182 patients treated for PJI with a two-stage protocol from 2005 to 2015. Implant removal and debridement were followed by Girdlestone arthroplasty or spacer implantation. The results of the Girdlestone and spacer groups were compared. There were 71 cases that received spacers, and 111 Girdlestone procedures were performed. After the first stage, 26.37% of cultures were negative, and among patients with a detected pathogen, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism (41.79%). Acetabular and femoral bone defects, according to the Paprosky classification, were more severe in the Girdlestone group (P<0.05). During the follow-up (mean, 5.95 years), the overall incidence of complications was 21.42%. The mean Harris hip score was significantly lower in the Girdlestone group (68.39 vs 77.79; P<0.0001). The infection recurrence rate reached 8.79%. Despite satisfactory infection control, the number of complications and poor functional outcomes associated with resection arthroplasty indicate the necessity for development of different approaches for patients with advanced bone loss.