Closed suction surgical wound drainage after hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Clifton, R.; Haleem, Shahnawaz; McKee, Alexis M.; Parker, MJ

doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0420-z

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous articles describe ways to reduce the risk of complications among patients with hip fractures in the inpatient setting once they leave the operating room [6,9,11,13,14,17,18,20,28,31,33,37,43,44]. These studies have focused on the importance of early mobilization, the use of general versus regional anesthesia to reduce pulmonary complications, the use of pharmacologic anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolic events, and the role of multidisciplinary care pathways for treatment of patients with hip fractures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Higher Hospital-wide Nurse Staffing Levels Reduce In-hospital Mortality in Elderly Patients with Hip Fractures: A Pilot Study

Schilling

Goulet

Dougherty

2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Higher Hospital-wide Nurse Staffing Levels Reduce In-hospital Mortality in Elderly Patients with Hip Fractures: A Pilot Study

Schilling

Goulet

Dougherty

2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wound drainage Wound drains have been used to prevent fluid accumulation, and some debate remains on the difference between using and not using drains [124]. Several studies in the orthopaedic domain indicate that there is no advantage in using a wound drain for implant-related surgery.…”

Section: Surgical Debridement and Irrigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of fracture-related infection: a multidisciplinary care package

Metsemakers

Onsea

Neutjens

et al. 2017

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fracture-related infection (FRI) remains a challenging complication. It may result in permanent functional loss or even amputation in otherwise healthy patients. For these reasons, it is important to focus attention on prevention. In treatment algorithms for FRI, antibiotic stewardship programmes have already proved their use by means of a multidisciplinary collaboration between microbiologists, surgeons, pharmacists, infectious disease physicians and nursing staff. A similar approach, however, has not been described for infection prevention. As a first step towards achieving a multidisciplinary care package for infection prevention, this review summarises the most recent guidelines published by the World Health Organization (WHO) and US National Institutes of Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), primarily focusing on the musculoskeletal trauma patient. The implementation of these guidelines, together with close collaboration between infection control physicians, surgeons, anaesthesiologists and nursing staff, can potentially have a beneficial effect on the rate of FRI after musculoskeletal trauma surgery. It must be stated that most evidence presented here in support of these guidelines was not obtained from musculoskeletal trauma research. Although most preventive measures described in these studies can be generalised to the musculoskeletal trauma patient, there are still important differences with nontrauma patients that require further attention. Future research should therefore focus more on this very defined patient population and more specifically on FRI prevention.

show abstract

“…An example of well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in the systematic review of closed suction surgical wound drainage after hip fracture surgery [11]. From the first paragraph of the methods section it is clear that the review looked at patients who underwent hip fracture surgery, the intervention of interest was closed suction drainage, the comparison was no drainage and outcomes were wound infection, wound haematoma, complications directly relating to drains and transfusion rate.…”

Section: Posing the Right Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the first paragraph of the methods section it is clear that the review looked at patients who underwent hip fracture surgery, the intervention of interest was closed suction drainage, the comparison was no drainage and outcomes were wound infection, wound haematoma, complications directly relating to drains and transfusion rate. The review included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of the quality of allocation concealment [11].…”

Section: Posing the Right Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopaedic surgery

Sambunjak

Franić

2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades of the twentieth century it became obvious that modern medical care is replete with data and information, but in need of reliable evidence. This has led to an increased effort to systematically synthesise medical research and make it more useful for practitioners. Systematic reviews use an approach to research synthesis that minimises the risk of misinterpreting a body of evidence due to incomprehensive search or subjective opinion. Carrying out a systematic review is a rigorous procedure which corresponds to standard methodological steps in primary research studies. It involves posing a well-defined question, developing a robust search strategy, screening for relevant primary studies, critical appraisal of included studies, data extraction and processing, analysis and interpretation of results. In some, but not all systematic reviews it is appropriate to conduct a meta-analysis, which is a statistical procedure that integrates the results of several independent studies. Results of meta-analysis are graphically presented in forest plots, with pooled point estimate and its confidence interval represented as a rhombus, usually called a "diamond". Methodological quality of systematic reviews should not be judged by the quality of primary studies included, but by a distinct set of criteria specified in assessment tools such as AMSTAR. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A major contribution to the development of methodological standards has been given by The Cochrane Collaboration, whose Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the primary reference for all authors and referees of systematic reviews in health care.

show abstract

Closed suction surgical wound drainage after hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Cited by 40 publications

References 8 publications

Do Higher Hospital-wide Nurse Staffing Levels Reduce In-hospital Mortality in Elderly Patients with Hip Fractures: A Pilot Study

Do Higher Hospital-wide Nurse Staffing Levels Reduce In-hospital Mortality in Elderly Patients with Hip Fractures: A Pilot Study

Prevention of fracture-related infection: a multidisciplinary care package

Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopaedic surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About