Suction Drainage Is Associated With Early Hemoglobin Decline but No Additional Clinical Benefit After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score–Matched Study
This propensity score–matched study of 1,260 patients concludes that while routine postoperative suction drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty leads to a slightly greater early hemoglobin decline, it provides no additional clinical benefit regarding blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay, or complication rates compared to no drainage.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a surgeon replaces a worn-out hip or knee joint, the body responds to the surgery much like it does to any deep cut: it bleeds. For decades, the standard practice in operating rooms has been to place a thin tube, a suction drain, into the wound before closing the skin. The idea is simple and intuitive: let the tube act as a safety valve, siphoning away the blood and fluid that naturally accumulate after such a major procedure. Proponents of this method argue that by keeping the surgical site clear, the drain prevents painful swelling, reduces the risk of infection, and helps the wound heal faster. It is a routine measure, performed on thousands of patients every year, based on the belief that removing fluid is always better than letting it sit inside the body.
However, medicine often evolves by questioning these long-held routines. In recent years, the tools available to surgeons have improved, particularly with the use of medications that help the blood clot and advanced techniques to minimize bleeding during the operation itself. This shift has led some experts to wonder if the old habit of using a drain is still necessary, or if it might even be counterproductive. The concern is that by constantly sucking fluid out, the drain might actually encourage the body to produce more blood, or that the tube itself could irritate the tissue without providing any real benefit. To settle this debate, a team of researchers in South Korea decided to look closely at the actual results of this practice, comparing patients who received a drain against those who did not, to see if the tube truly made a difference in how patients recovered.
The researchers examined the records of nearly 2,400 patients who had undergone primary hip or knee replacement surgery between 2020 and 2026. Because the decision to use a drain was not random but depended on the specific time and circumstances of each surgery, the team used a sophisticated statistical method to create two perfectly matched groups. They paired patients who had a drain with patients who did not, ensuring that both groups were identical in age, sex, body weight, and the type of surgery they received. This allowed them to isolate the effect of the drain itself, removing other factors that might skew the results. In the end, they analyzed 1,260 patients, split evenly between those with a suction drain and those without.
The results revealed a clear, but somewhat surprising, pattern. On the first day after surgery, the group with the drains did show a slightly larger drop in their hemoglobin levels, a measure of the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The hemoglobin in the drain group fell by an average of 2.0 grams per deciliter, compared to a drop of 1.8 grams in the group without drains. This suggests that the drains did indeed remove more fluid from the body in the immediate hours following the operation. However, this difference was purely a matter of numbers on a lab report. When the researchers looked at the things that actually matter to a patient's recovery, the two groups were indistinguishable.
There was no difference in the total amount of blood lost, the need for blood transfusions, or the length of time patients stayed in the hospital. The rates of serious complications, such as infections, blood clots, or problems with the wound healing, were the same in both groups. Even when the researchers looked specifically at patients who were taking blood-thinning medications like aspirin or anticoagulants, the presence of a drain did not change the outcome. Whether a patient was on these medications or not, the drain group did not experience fewer complications or a faster recovery than the group without drains. In fact, for patients undergoing knee replacement, the group with drains stayed in the hospital slightly longer on average, though the difference was small.
The study concludes that the routine use of suction drains after hip and knee replacement surgery does not provide a meaningful clinical benefit. While the drains successfully removed fluid and caused a slightly larger, early drop in hemoglobin levels, this did not translate into better healing, fewer infections, or a shorter hospital stay. The findings suggest that the drain acts primarily as a mechanism that alters early laboratory measurements without improving the actual recovery process. For surgeons and patients, this implies that the routine insertion of a tube may be unnecessary, as the body heals just as well, and just as safely, without it. The research supports the idea that modern surgical techniques and medications are sufficient to manage postoperative fluid, rendering the traditional suction drain an outdated habit in many cases.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.