Comparison between drainage and non-drainage after total hip arthroplasty in Chinese subjects

OBJECTIVE: To assess the difference between drainage and non‐drainage after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Chinese subjects by evaluating post‐operative complications and joint function. METHODS: One hundred and sixty‐eight patients undergoing THA were randomly allocated into drainage (83 patients) and non‐drainage groups (85 patients). All surgeries were performed by one surgical team using the same pre‐, intra‐, and postoperative techniques. Measured items included: hemoglobin (Hb), superficial and deep wound infection, volume of blood transfusion, wound hematoma thickness, range of motion (ROM) of the hip, wound healing time, ecchymosis and tension vesicles around the wound. RESULTS: Early after THA, the Hb decreased significantly in the drainage group. There was no significant difference between non‐drainage and drainage groups in need for or volume of blood transfusions (9.6% vs 8.2%, P = 0.100; 3.8 units vs 2.9 units, P = 0.089, respectively). In the non‐drainage group, the incidence of superficial infection, ecchymosis and tension vesicles was significantly higher than in the drainage group (10.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.031; 12.9% vs 3.6%, P = 0.026; 16.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.013, respectively). In addition, the non‐drainage group had a greater volume of hematomas (P = 0.000). Patients in the non‐drainage group had smaller ROMs early after surgery but the final ROMs did not differ significantly between groups. No deep infection occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Non‐drainage may reduce postoperative blood loss but has no benefits regarding blood transfusion or deep infection. It may cause more post‐operative complications because of restriction of early postoperative exercise by pain and swelling. Therefore we suggest routine use of drainage after THA.