Effect of Various Ancillary Operating Room Techniques on Wound Healing Outcomes After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Abstract

Introduction: The successful management of wound healing following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is multifaceted, relying on various intraoperative techniques and surgical variables. Recent reviews have evaluated many of these factors, including the comparison between mesh-adhesive dressings and other skin closure methods, the closing time of different suture techniques, and the four aspects of closure for THA (deep fascial layer; subdermal layer; intradermal layer). However, previous articles did not cover certain topics that can be directly influenced by the surgeon. Specifically, these include the use of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the management of intraoperative drains, and the selection of surgical approaches. Therefore, in this comprehensive systematic review of the literature, we have focused on three factors that may influence wound healing. We evaluated the following: (1) the impact of different DVT prophylaxis methods on wound healing and infection rates; (2) the effects of intraoperative drain use on wound healing; (3) the influence of various surgical approaches on wound closure, and postoperative infection rates. By concentrating on these areas, this review aims to provide a more complete understanding of the factors that contribute to successful wound management after THA.

Materials and methods: A systematic search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase, was conducted to identify studies assessing surgical variables and techniques, specifically focusing on DVT prophylaxis, intraoperative drain use, and surgical approaches and their impact on wound healing in THA. Relevant terms like "hip," "arthroplasty," "wound healing," "DVT prophylaxis," and "surgical approaches" refined the search, which included English language publications until May 1, 2023. Independent screening by two authors and a third mediator facilitated the selection process, with 13 studies meeting the criteria. Assessment of these studies involved evaluating their evidence level and methodological quality using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS). A comparison was made on wound healing outcomes in THA, specifically focusing on the three factors outlined in the introduction: (1) the impact of different DVT prophylaxis methods on wound healing and infection rates; (2) the effects of intraoperative drain use on wound healing; and (3) the influence of various surgical approaches on wound closure and postoperative infection rates. Data synthesis for the studies provided a comprehensive summary, categorizing them by evidence level, and aimed to contribute to a more complete understanding of the factors that influence successful wound management after THA.

Results: In studies examining DVT prophylaxis for total knee arthroplasties (TKA), three reports found that both rivaroxaban and enoxaparin had similar wound infection rates at 0.36%. However, one study segment suggested a slightly higher infection rate for rivaroxaban at 0.71% compared to enoxaparin's 0.49%. Despite this difference, it was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 3.86). In recent research, a low dose of aspirin has been observed to yield fewer wound complications when contrasted with other techniques. Five studies on intraoperative drain use revealed mixed outcomes. A total of five studies were identified that evaluated wound complications with drains following THA, comprising two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three observational cohort studies, with a combined sample size of 765. Among these, four studies specifically compared the use of closed suction drains to no drains. Half of these studies (two out of four) reported no significant differences in wound complications between the two groups, while the other half presented mixed findings. In surgical approach comparisons by Jin et al., meta-analysis between the direct anterior approach (DAA) and posterolateral approach (PLA) showed no significant difference in complications (OR 0.57, p=0.952). Two studies analyzed bikini incision DAA versus PLA or conventional DAA, indicating comparable outcomes with no significant differences in wound complications between the approaches and no major variations in healing, acute PJI, or dysesthesia when comparing bikini incision DAA to conventional DAA.

Conclusion: Wound healing post THA is a complex process, influenced by various surgical techniques and intraoperative decisions. This systematic review meticulously examined three critical factors: the role of DVT prophylaxis, the implications of intraoperative drain usage, and the impact of different surgical approaches. Our analysis revealed that rivaroxaban and enoxaparin exhibit similar wound infection rates in THA. The decision to use intraoperative drains in the current literature indicates no definite advantage or disadvantage regarding wound problems with the use of closed-suction drainage in THA. In exploring surgical methodologies, the DAA and the PLA showed comparable complication rates. Yet, specific techniques within the DAA category demonstrated variations in delayed wound healing, particularly among obese patients. These findings emphasize the nuanced role of surgical choices in determining wound healing outcomes. As the field of THA continues to evolve, it becomes important for surgeons to be well-informed, ensuring optimal patient outcomes.