Report of experience in 190 patients with the use of closed suction drainage in arthroscopic knee procedures

Abstract

The goal of this study is to report our experience with the use of suction drainage for various arthroscopic knee procedures. One hundred and ninety patients who underwent arthroscopic knee procedures participated in the study, and were divided into two groups (Group 1: Suction drainage, Group 2: No suction drainage). For every patient, the following parameters were recorded: age, gender, operative time, tourniquet or pump use, the amount of fluid collected in the hemovac drain, presence of meniscal tear, type of the operative procedure, date of the operation, and presence of effusion at the follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed to detect any significant statistical difference between the amount of fluid collected in the hemovac drain and the other mentioned parameters in Group 1; and these patients were divided into four subgroups to facilitate the statistical evaluation between the procedures and the amount of fluid collected in the hemovac drain. The partial meniscectomy subgroup had significantly lower amounts of collected fluid when compared to the subtotal meniscectomy subgroup. Drilling of the osteochondral faces led to significantly higher amounts of fluid when compared to non-drilling cases. Use of an infusion pump during surgery and shorter operation time led to lower amounts of fluid to be collected. No case in either main group suffered from effusion at the follow-up. Our investigation demonstrated that in different arthroscopic interventions, variable amounts of fluid can be collected in the hemovac drains. Subtotal meniscal resection, drilling of the osteochondral faces and longer duration of the operation increase the amount of fluid. In cases of partial meniscal resection and/or chondral debridement, limited synovial and plica resection, suction drainage is unnecessary.

A Cell-free Scaffold-based Cartilage Repair Provides Improved Function Hyaline-like Repair at One year

“…Our rate is similar to those reported for other cartilage repair techniques such as microfracture and ACI, which show effusions from 5% to 31% [12,28]. Tatari et al found drilling of the osteochondral surface led to higher amounts of fluid and bleeding owing to the penetration of the subchondral bone in comparison to nondrilling [35]. They recommended suction drainage to prevent subsequent effusions in these arthroscopic procedures [35].…”

“…Tatari et al found drilling of the osteochondral surface led to higher amounts of fluid and bleeding owing to the penetration of the subchondral bone in comparison to nondrilling [35]. They recommended suction drainage to prevent subsequent effusions in these arthroscopic procedures [35]. All of our patients had improvement at [31].…”

Knee Effusion after Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy: Prospective Study Comparing Preventing Methods

“…Tatari [15] in his study of 57 patients who underwent partial meniscectomy, found that none of them presented significant effusion at 4, 7 nor 15 days after the procedure. Concordantly, our group found similar results with 92% of patients not presenting significant effusion at 7 days post intervention.…”

Application of ox muzzle drainage in knee arthroscopy

“…[19] Contrarily, Tatari proposed that although use of drains can improve the vision, they are unnecessary for partial meniscectomy, cartilage repair, or limited synovial plica excision operations. [20] In addition, drains cannot keep the pressure stable in the knee joint. [21] Suspensory irrigation cannot provide clear vision, because the drainage may be blocked by the subcutaneous tissue and joint capsule under the lateral edge of the incision.…”