The usage of drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: best evidence selection and risk of bias considerations

Abstract

Abstract Background Numerous systematic reviews investigating the benefit of the usage of drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty have been published with divergent conclusions. We aim to determine the best available evidence and consider risk of bias of these articles and to provide recommendations. Methods A systematic search of systematic reviews published through to May 2020 was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Methodological quality, risk of bias and best evidence choice of included articles were evaluated by AMSTAR instrument, ROBIS tool and Jadad decision algorithm, respectively. We selected systematic reviews with high methodological quality and low risk of bias ultimately as best evidence. Results Twelve meta-analyses were included lastly. According to the ROBIS tool, seven of the included systematic reviews were with low risk of bias and five with high risk of bias. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that two reviews conducted by Zan et al. for hip and Si et al. et al. for knee were selected as the best evidence, with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias. Conclusions Ten systematic reviews were included as low-quality with only two high-quality studies. Based on the current available evidence, we have insufficient confidence to draw conclusion that whether to use closed suction drainage for both total knee and hip arthroplasty. To verify the necessity and benefit of using closed suction drainage after primary total knee and hip arthroplasty, and develop exact recommendations, further studies are still required.

Keywords

• Arthroplasty
• Overview
• Drainage
• Evidence
• Risk-of bias