Cargando…

Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the standard treatment in patients with symptomatic reparable rotator cuff tear. It brings good to excellent postoperative outcomes. Postoperative suction drainage is the method to theoretically reduce postoperative shoulder swelling and hematoma forma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Apivatgaroon, Adinun, Ratanacharatroj, Yingyos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8178620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34136855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.12.016
_version_ 1783703609469304832
author Apivatgaroon, Adinun
Ratanacharatroj, Yingyos
author_facet Apivatgaroon, Adinun
Ratanacharatroj, Yingyos
author_sort Apivatgaroon, Adinun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the standard treatment in patients with symptomatic reparable rotator cuff tear. It brings good to excellent postoperative outcomes. Postoperative suction drainage is the method to theoretically reduce postoperative shoulder swelling and hematoma formation, which is still commonly used in clinical practice, yet its efficacy remains unproven. METHODS: This is a nonblinded prospective randomized controlled study. A sample of 43 shoulders were simply randomized without replacement across drain and nondrain groups, allocated by sealed envelope before skin closures. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed. The difference of oblique (O) and horizontal (H) shoulder circumference between before and after operation is the primary parameter indicating swelling and hematoma formation. The preoperative reliability of O and H dimensions were evaluated by 2 independent evaluators. The visual analog scale, estimated blood loss, and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score were analyzed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of circumference between drain and nondrain groups in both O and H methods. For method O, the mean difference between drain and nondrain groups at 24 hours was -0.25 (95% CI: -2.09 to 1.59, P = .783), at 1 week was -0.54 (95% CI: -2.05 to 0.96, P = .470), at 1 month was -0.39 (95% CI: -2.06 to 1.28, P = .639) and at 3 months was -0.01 (95% CI: -1.49 to 1.46, P = .987). Method H: Mean difference between groups at 24 hours was 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.61 to 1.20, P = .520), at 1 week was 0.004 (95% CI: -0.99 to 1.002, P = .993), at 1 month was -0.53 (95% CI: -1.62 to 0.56, P = .333), and at 3 months was -0.07 (95% CI: -0.91 to 0.77, P = .862). The preoperative O and H parameters showed strong to almost perfect agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient for A = 0.858 [95% CI: 0.738 to 0.923, P < .001], intraclass correlation coefficient for B = 0.955 [95% CI: 0.918 to 0.976, P < .001]). No significant difference of visual analog scale, estimated blood loss, and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was recorded between groups. CONCLUSION: No difference was found between drain and nondrain placement for shoulder swelling, visual analog scale, estimated blood loss, and functional outcome in 3 months after surgery. Drain placement after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is of unproven benefit in routine clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8178620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81786202021-06-15 Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial Apivatgaroon, Adinun Ratanacharatroj, Yingyos JSES Int Shoulder BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the standard treatment in patients with symptomatic reparable rotator cuff tear. It brings good to excellent postoperative outcomes. Postoperative suction drainage is the method to theoretically reduce postoperative shoulder swelling and hematoma formation, which is still commonly used in clinical practice, yet its efficacy remains unproven. METHODS: This is a nonblinded prospective randomized controlled study. A sample of 43 shoulders were simply randomized without replacement across drain and nondrain groups, allocated by sealed envelope before skin closures. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed. The difference of oblique (O) and horizontal (H) shoulder circumference between before and after operation is the primary parameter indicating swelling and hematoma formation. The preoperative reliability of O and H dimensions were evaluated by 2 independent evaluators. The visual analog scale, estimated blood loss, and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score were analyzed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of circumference between drain and nondrain groups in both O and H methods. For method O, the mean difference between drain and nondrain groups at 24 hours was -0.25 (95% CI: -2.09 to 1.59, P = .783), at 1 week was -0.54 (95% CI: -2.05 to 0.96, P = .470), at 1 month was -0.39 (95% CI: -2.06 to 1.28, P = .639) and at 3 months was -0.01 (95% CI: -1.49 to 1.46, P = .987). Method H: Mean difference between groups at 24 hours was 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.61 to 1.20, P = .520), at 1 week was 0.004 (95% CI: -0.99 to 1.002, P = .993), at 1 month was -0.53 (95% CI: -1.62 to 0.56, P = .333), and at 3 months was -0.07 (95% CI: -0.91 to 0.77, P = .862). The preoperative O and H parameters showed strong to almost perfect agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient for A = 0.858 [95% CI: 0.738 to 0.923, P < .001], intraclass correlation coefficient for B = 0.955 [95% CI: 0.918 to 0.976, P < .001]). No significant difference of visual analog scale, estimated blood loss, and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was recorded between groups. CONCLUSION: No difference was found between drain and nondrain placement for shoulder swelling, visual analog scale, estimated blood loss, and functional outcome in 3 months after surgery. Drain placement after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is of unproven benefit in routine clinical practice. Elsevier 2021-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8178620/ /pubmed/34136855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.12.016 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Shoulder
Apivatgaroon, Adinun
Ratanacharatroj, Yingyos
Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
title Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
title_short Efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort efficacy of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial
topic Shoulder
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8178620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34136855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.12.016
work_keys_str_mv AT apivatgaroonadinun efficacyofpostoperativedrainageafterarthroscopicrotatorcuffrepairarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ratanacharatrojyingyos efficacyofpostoperativedrainageafterarthroscopicrotatorcuffrepairarandomizedcontrolledtrial