Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2246304

Why use drains?

J P Cobb
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

There is no firm published evidence to support the use of closed suction drains. Over 20 years ago, large studies by the Public Health Laboratory Service and the National Research Council found that drains were risk factors for wound infection. A prospective randomised study of the use of closed suction drains after surgery for fractured neck of femur in 70 patients failed to show that drains improved wound healing. Drained cases had more complications.

Explore related subjects

Femoral Neck FracturesHumansProspective StudiesRandom AllocationSuctionSurgical Wound InfectionWound HealingClinical TrialComparative StudyControlled Clinical TrialJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J P Cobb. 1990. Why use drains?. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.72b6.2246304

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

National survey in the United Kingdom of prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis for patients with fracture of the neck of the femur.

Thromboprophylaxis continues to be a contentious issue because of a lack of clear answers to pertinent questions. Hence, a survey is helpful in identifying current practices. A national survey in the UK in January 2004 investigated the use of thromboprophylaxis following fracture of the neck of the femur. Responses from 723/1648 (44%) orthopaedic consultants to a postal questionnaire showed that 623 (86%) regularly undertook trauma surgery and 625 (87%) had protocols for prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis. In all, 555 (89%) consultants followed these protocols routinely and, of these, 276 (50%) regularly used both chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, 235 (42%) used chemoprophylaxis only and 44 (8%) used mechanical prophylaxis only. Among consultants using chemoprophylaxis, 238 (46%) used low-molecular-weight heparin, 148 (30%) used aspirin, 75 (15%) used low-molecular-weight heparin and aspirin, 35 (6%) used unfractionated heparin and 15 (3%) used warfarin. However, 68 (11%) did not use any thromboprophylaxis at all for patients with fractured neck of the femur.

Femoral Neck Fractures↗
PubMed2006

The Bristol Hip View: a new hypothetical radiographic projection for femoral neck fractures.

This experimental study is to evaluate a modified radiographic view of the femoral neck in the assessment of femoral fractures. A dry femur and pelvis was set up in a rig to simulate the positioning of a routine anteroposterior (AP) pelvis X-ray view. Films were exposed to create a routine AP pelvis, AP hip and two views with external tube angulation of 15 degrees and 30 degrees. Observers were asked to evaluate the films using a visual analogue score on two separate occasions. The same films were performed on a further fractured femoral neck to assess the fracture clarity. There was good intraobserver and interobserver correlation. Observers ranked the 15 degrees and 30 degrees angled films as showing the femoral neck most clearly, over and above the traditional views (p<0.001). The fracture was best demonstrated on the 30 degrees angled film (p<0.001). The 30 degrees angled view appears to demonstrate the femoral neck anatomy more clearly than the traditional views but also showed increased fracture sharpness. The authors are proceeding to a clinical trial to assess this in trauma practice.

Femoral Neck Fractures↗