人工全髋关节置换术后负压引流的临床对照研究
Clinical Controlled Study on Negative Pressure Drainage after Total Hip Arthroplasty
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2026.161221, PDF, HTML, XML,   
作者: 孙铭泽, 王大麟*:北华大学附属医院骨科中心运动医学组,吉林 吉林
关键词: 人工全髋关节置换术负压引流WBCCRPESRHBTotal Hip Arthroplasty Negative Pressure Drainage WBC CRP ESR HB
摘要: 背景:随着人口老龄化加速及生活方式的改变,股骨头坏死(药物性、酒精性、创伤性)、股骨颈骨折、髋骨关节炎疾病日益增多。人工全髋关节置换术(Total Hip Arthroplasty, THA)作为此类疾病的主要治疗方式,需求随之增大,THA不仅可以显著缓解疼痛、有效恢复关节活动度及功能,还能够帮助患者早期离床活动,同时降低褥疮、下肢静脉血栓等长期卧床并发症的发生概率。然而,THA存在一些术后并发症,如疼痛、感染、假体松动及周围骨折、神经血管损伤等,其中感染是最严重的并发症之一。目的:探讨THA术后24小时关节囊内安置负压引流器对患者白细胞、红细胞沉降率、C反应蛋白、血红蛋白的影响。方法:对2020年6月至2024年8月在我科行全髋关节置换术的患者进行回顾性分析,严格按照纳入标准和排除标准入选52例患者,收集两组患者的一般资料、术后第1、3、5、7、10天的WBC、CRP和ESR 水平,并进行统计学分析。结果:两组患者性别、身高、体重、年龄、疾病种类、手术部位等基础资料无显著差异,两组患者手术顺利,均无严重并发症发生。引流组与非引流组术后不同时间点(术后第1、3、5、7、10天)里WBC水平在引流组与非引流组之间均不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平。通过两组结果对比检验得出术后1天以及术后7天CRP水平在引流组与非引流组之间存在显著的差异,P < 0.05水平,具体表现为引流组CRP显著更高;而术后3、5、10天CRP水平在引流组与非引流组之间不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平。术后不同时间点ESR水平在引流组与非引流组之间不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平。结论:人工全髋关节置换术后采取切口引流会在术后使CRP水平升高,增加术后感染的风险,但严格控制术后引流放置时间配合术后抗生素治疗可以有效降低炎症反应的程度。
Abstract: Background: With the acceleration of population aging and changes in lifestyle, diseases such as femoral head necrosis (drug-induced, alcohol-induced, and traumatic), femoral neck fractures, and hip osteoarthritis are increasing. Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is the main treatment for these diseases, and the demand for it is increasing. THA can significantly relieve pain, effectively restore joint range of motion and function, and help patients get out of bed early, while reducing the occurrence of long-term bedridden complications such as pressure sores and deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremities. However, THA has some postoperative complications, such as pain, infection, prosthesis loosening, surrounding fractures, and nerve and vascular injuries. Among them, infection is one of the most serious complications. Objective: To explore the effect of placing a negative pressure drainage device in the joint capsule 24 hours after THA on the levels of white blood cells (WBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hemoglobin (HB) in patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty in our department from June 2020 to August 2024. Fifty-two patients were selected strictly according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. General data of the two groups of patients and the levels of WBC, CRP, and ESR on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 10th days after surgery were collected and statistically analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in basic data such as gender, height, weight, age, disease type, and surgical site between the two groups. The surgeries of both groups were successful, and no serious complications occurred. There were no significant differences in WBC levels between the drainage group and the non-drainage group at different time points after surgery (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 10th days), P > 0.05. The comparison of the results of the two groups showed that there were significant differences in CRP levels between the drainage group and the non-drainage group on the 1st and 7th days after surgery, P < 0.05, with significantly higher CRP levels in the drainage group. There were no significant differences in CRP levels between the two groups on the 3rd, 5th, and 10th days after surgery, P > 0.05. There were significant differences in ESR levels between the drainage group and the non-drainage group at different time points after surgery, P < 0.05, with significantly higher ESR levels in the drainage group. There were no significant differences in ESR scores between the two groups at other time points, P > 0.05. Conclusion: Postoperative incision drainage after total hip arthroplasty can increase CRP levels and increase the risk of postoperative infection. However, strictly controlling the placement time of postoperative drainage and combining it with postoperative antibiotic treatment can effectively reduce the degree of inflammatory response.
文章引用:孙铭泽, 王大麟. 人工全髋关节置换术后负压引流的临床对照研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(1): 1740-1747. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.161221

1. 前言

人工全髋关节置换术(THA)是用于治疗各种终末期髋关节疾病的常用可靠方法。手术过程涉及股骨髓质,所以术后渗血较多,伤口容易形成血肿。血肿可能会增加伤口张力,导致伤口不易愈合,同时为细菌提供良好的媒介,增加感染的风险[1] [2]。充分且有效的引流能够降低局部组织张力,既有助于减少感染风险,又可缓解局部不适症状,还能对术后关节功能的恢复起到积极的促进作用[3]-[7]。基于此,全髋关节置换术(THA)后常规需要放置引流装置。但髋关节置换术后封闭式抽吸引流系统的常规使用存在争议,一些研究建议THA后不可以进行闭式引流,因为常规使用引流可能弊大于利[8] [9]。因此,有几项研究评估了引流系统的有效性,但并没有得出相同的结论。许多医生仍然使用引流管来降低并发症的风险。插入引流管的最重要原因是防止血肿形成并减少感染的机会[10]。然而,引流可能会增加通过引流管逆行感染的风险,引流时间延长也可能增加异物感染率。通过对比引流组与非引流组术后不同时间点的C反应蛋白(CRP)、白细胞计数(WBC)及红细胞沉降率(ESR)水平,评估引流对全身炎症反应的影响。同时记录两组间伤口愈合情况、血肿发生率及深部感染率,分析引流是否增加术后并发症风险。研究结果有望为全髋关节置换术后引流策略提供循证依据,优化围术期管理方案。

2. 全髋关节置换术后是否引流对常见炎症指标(WBC、ESR及CRP)的影响

2.1. 材料与方法

2.1.1. 一般资料与分组方法

选择2021年3月至2024年9月期间因疾病于骨科中心行初次全髋关节置换术的患者资料及检验、检查结果。

1. 纳入和排除标准

(1) 纳入标准:① 病历完整,术后资料齐全;② 初次行单侧THA切术后缝合关节囊,病种:股骨头无菌性坏死,且患侧无严重的关节畸形;③ 使用生物型陶瓷假体;④ 无严重内科疾病;⑤ 无手术部位外伤史。符合以上所有标准者纳入。

(2) 排除标准:① 近期手术史;② 术前有凝血功能异常及严重的贫血;③ 术前长期使用抗凝及抗血小板聚集药物。以上患者排除。

52例患者随机分为2组,常规引流组和非引流组进行比较。

2.1.2. 治疗方法

(1) 术前准备

术前完善血、尿、便常规、肝肾功能、凝血五项、传染病筛查、下肢动静脉血管彩超、超声心动图、心电图、胸片、髋部正侧位X线、髋部三维CT,术前签订手术知情同意书及麻醉知情同意书,术前12小时禁食、8小时禁水,术前30分钟给予头孢呋辛钠400 mg + 0.9%氯化钠注射液100 ml静脉滴注预防感染治疗、氨甲环酸氯化钠注射液100 ml静脉滴注控制出血、万古霉素1 g以备手术缝合前均匀倒入关节囊内预防感染。

(2) 手术方法

均采用相同的手术技术和引流装置,在腰硬联合麻醉下,健侧卧位,采用后外侧切口入路,逐层显露、分层标记并完整保留梨状肌、短外旋肌群及关节囊,髋臼及股骨磨锉和扩髓至适宜大小后,植入人工关节位置适宜后,均匀倒入万古霉素1000 mg,引流组引流管置于关节囊内,随后缝合关节囊,并修复短外旋及梨状肌;非引流组直接缝合关节囊,修复短外旋及梨状肌,最后缝合切口。

(3) 术后处理

所有创面均采用普通敷料进行包扎,未实施加压处理。术后24小时内采取低流量吸氧、持续心电监护措施,同时抬高患肢并对术区进行冰敷;术后6小时恢复饮食,给予补液支持,联合口服塞来昔布胶囊(200 mg/次,2次/日)镇痛,以及注射用头孢呋辛钠500 mg + 0.9%氯化钠注射液100 ml静脉滴注(1次/日)预防感染;此外,术后6小时起口服利伐沙班(10 mg/日,1次/日),以预防双下肢静脉血栓形成。引流管于术后3小时开放,术后24小时拔除;术后第1天复查血常规、红细胞沉降率(ESR),患者需在助行器辅助下下床开展功能锻炼,卧床期间行患肢直腿抬高训练。术后第3、5、7、10天分别复查血常规、红细胞沉降率(ESR)、肝肾功能及电解质,出院前复查髋关节正侧位X线片。

2.1.3. 观察项目与方法

(1) 记录患者的一般资料;

(2) 记录术后第1天、第3天、第5天、第7天、第10天患者ESR、CRP、WBC、HB水平;

(3) 有无伤口感染或异常渗出。

2.1.4. 统计学方法

使用SPSS26.0软件进行统计学数据分析。比较引流组以及非引流组两组的术后相关资料。计量资料若服从正态分布则以均数 ± 标准差(x ± s)表示,采用独立样本t检验。P < 0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

2.2. 结果

2.2.1. 两组患者术后WBC水平比较

通过独立样本t检验比较WBC得分在不同分组上的差异,经检验术后不同时间点里WBC得分在引流组与非引流组之间均不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平。具体数据见表1图1

Table 1. Difference test of WBC in different groups

1. WBC在不同分组的差异检验

组别

例数

术后1天

术后3天

术后5天

术后7天

术后10天

引流组

26

9.73 ± 2.85

7.4 ± 2.34

6.3 ± 1.92

6.26 ± 1.76

6.15 ± 1.67

非引流组

26

10.01 ± 2.18

8.02 ± 2.57

6.04 ± 1.63

6.62 ± 1.58

6.59 ± 1.52

t值

−0.389

−0.902

0.521

−0.773

0.988

P值

0.699

0.372

0.605

0.443

0.328

Figure 1. Trends of WBC postoperative scores in different groups

1. WBC术后得分在不同分组趋势

2.2.2. 两组患者术后CRP水平比较

通过独立样本t检验比较CRP得分在不同分组上的差异,经检验术后1天CRP得分在引流组与非引流组之间存在显著的差异,P < 0.05水平,具体表现为引流组CRP显著更高;术后7天CRP得分在引流组与非引流组之间存在显著的差异,P < 0.05水平,具体表现为引流组CRP显著更高;而其余术后时间点CRP得分在引流组与非引流组之间均不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平,见表2图2

Table 2. Difference test of CRP in different groups

2. CRP在不同分组的差异检验

组别

例数

术后1天

术后3天

术后5天

术后7天

术后10天

引流组

26

65.37 ± 47.1

90.63 ± 60.8

54.14 ± 46.5

29.16 ± 25.59

15.23 ± 16.89

非引流组

26

40.37 ± 28.27

80.34 ± 42.54

34.54 ± 21.51

17.5 ± 12.74

8.34 ± 6.72

t值

2.287

0.702

1.944

2.048

1.930

P值

0.027

0.486

0.060

0.046

0.063

Figure 2. Trends of CRP postoperative scores in different groups

2. CRP术后得分在不同分组趋势

2.2.3. 两组患者术后ESR水平比较

通过独立样本t检验比较ESR得分在不同分组上的差异,经检验术后不同时间点里ESR得分在引流组与非引流组之间均不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平。具体数据见表3图3

Table 3. Difference test of ESR in different groups

3. ESR在不同分组的差异检验

组别

例数

术后1天

术后3天

术后5天

术后7天

术后10天

引流组

26

39.78 ± 27.08

50.95 ± 29.11

50.02 ± 24.82

45.72 ± 22.83

35.38 ± 24.62

非引流组

26

32.2 ± 23.23

46.64 ± 22.19

43.56 ± 20.76

38.26 ± 15.87

24.95 ± 12.74

t值

1.072

0.592

1.006

1.350

1.911

P值

0.289

0.556

0.320

0.183

0.064

Figure 3. Trends of ESR postoperative scores in different groups

3. ESR术后得分在不同分组趋势

2.2.4. 两组患者术后Hb水平比较

通过独立样本t检验比较Hb得分在不同分组上的差异,经检验术后不同时间点里Hb得分在引流组与非引流组之间均不存在显著的差异,P > 0.05水平。具体数据见表4图4

Table 4. Difference test of Hb in different groups

4. Hb在不同分组的差异检验

组别

例数

术后1天

术后3天

术后5天

术后7天

术后10天

引流组

26

118.88 ± 17.29

111.15 ± 15.17

109.12 ± 16.21

108.5 ± 15.28

109.58 ± 16.08

非引流组

26

127.36 ± 16.06

117.04 ± 15.76

114.48 ± 15.43

114.6 ± 16.8

117.76 ± 16.95

t值

−1.812

−1.359

−1.210

−1.357

−1.769

P值

0.079

0.180

0.232

0.181

0.083

Figure 4. Trends of Hb postoperative scores in different groups

4. Hb术后得分在不同分组趋势

3. 讨论

近些年关节置换术后常规应用引流装置仍存在争议[4],部分人认为不放置引流可以减少术后失血量,但对输血率或感染没有益处,由于疼痛和肿胀限制了术后早期运动,它可能会导致更多的术后并发症[2] [8],因此部分建议在THA后常规使用引流。应用引流管的主要目的是防止血肿形成并减少细菌以血液为营养导致感染的发生。

本研究通过监测WBC、CRP和ESR三个血液指标反应患者术后炎症反应的程度,WBC、CRP和ESR结合检查,对早期感染诊断具有互补作用,有助于减少漏诊的发生,提高诊断的准确性[11]-[14]。国外相关学者的研究结果显示[15],将白细胞计数、C反应蛋白及红细胞沉降率三项指标联合用于术后感染监测,确诊率可接近100%。术后引流组患者在第1天和第7天CRP水平明显高于非引流组患者,分析其可能的原因为:引流管作为异物局部刺激手术周围组织,机体产生无菌性炎症反应,激活炎症细胞释放炎症介质,致使CRP升高。其余三项指标(WBC、ESR、HB)在两组间未见明显统计学差异,表明术后常规使用负压引流器无明显有利作用[16]-[19]。本研究因纳入样本较少存在一定局限性,未来需进一步全面评估全髋关节置换术后引流的影响。

4. 结论

本研究表明在不考虑输血相关问题的情况下,人工全髋关节置换术后采取切口引流会在术后使CRP水平升高,术后早期存在更强的炎症反应,但本研究两组患者均未出现术后感染,应当与严格控制术后引流放置时间配合术后抗生素治疗有效降低炎症反应有关。可得出结论,不建议全髋关节置换术后常规使用负压引流器。

本研究获得北华大学附属医院伦理委员会批准(审批号:20250105)。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] 徐闯, 刘明廷, 戚大春, 等. 人工全髋关节置换术后关节腔引流管留置与管理方案的现状[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2017, 25(6): 530-533.
[2] Lee, G.W., Park, K.S., Kim, D.Y., Shin, Y.R. and Yoon, T.R. (2020) New Strategy of Closed Suction Drainage after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 51, 223-226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Nanni, M., Perna, F., Calamelli, C., Donati, D., Ferrara, O., Parlato, A., et al. (2013) Wound Drainages in Total Hip Arthroplasty: To Use or Not to Use? Review of the Literature on Current Practice. Musculoskeletal Surgery, 97, 101-107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Zeng, W., Zhou, K., Zhou, Z., Shen, B., Yang, J., Kang, P., et al. (2014) Comparison between Drainage and Non‐Drainage after Total Hip Arthroplasty in Chinese Subjects. Orthopaedic Surgery, 6, 28-32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Luo, G.G., Zhang, H.Z., Yao, J.C., et al. (2015) Case-Control Study on Effects of Vacuum Drainage on Perioperative Blood Loss after Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures. China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 28, 210-213. (In Chinese)
[6] Mei, X.L., Guo, T. and Zhao, J.N. (2010) Controlled Clinical Trials on Effective Means of Drainage after Total Hip Arthroplasty. China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 23, 672-674. (In Chinese)
[7] Zhou, X., Li, J., Xiong, Y., Jiang, L., Li, W. and Wu, L. (2013) Do We Really Need Closed-Suction Drainage in Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Meta-Analysis. International Orthopaedics, 37, 2109-2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Widman, J., Jacobsson, H., Larsson, S.A. and Isacson, J. (2002) No Effect of Drains on the Postoperative Hematoma Volume in Hip Replacement Surgery: A Randomized Study Using Scintigraphy. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 73, 625-629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Waugh, T.R. and Stinchfield, F.E. (1961) Suction Drainage of Orthopaedic Wounds. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 43, 939-1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[10] 梅晓亮, 郭亭, 赵建宁. 人工全髋关节置换术后有效引流方法的临床对照试验[J]. 中国骨伤, 2010, 23(9): 672-674.
[11] Hariharan, P. and Kabrhel, C. (2011) Sensitivity of Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein for the Exclusion of Septic Arthritis in Emergency Department Patients. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 40, 428-431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Ghanem, E., Antoci, V., Pulido, L., Joshi, A., Hozack, W. and Parvizi, J. (2009) The Use of Receiver Operating Characteristics Analysis in Determining Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Levels in Diagnosing Periprosthetic Infection Prior to Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 13, e444-e449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] 陈家富, 孔荣. CRP ESR和WBC计数在髋关节置换手术前后的变化及临床意义[J]. 安徽医学, 2012, 33(2): 162-164.
[14] Ip, D., Yam, S. and Chen, C. (2005) Implications of the Changing Pattern of Bacterial Infections Following Total Joint Replacements. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, 13, 125-130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Willemen, D., Paul, J., White, S.H. and Crook, D.W.M. (1991) Closed Suction Drainage Following Knee Arthroplasty. Effectiveness and Risks. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 264, 232-234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[16] 董存元, 岳燕军, 陈素娟, 等. 人工关节置换术围手术期C反应蛋白红细胞沉降率及白细胞计数监测[J]. 山西医药杂志(上半月), 2013, 42(2): 178-180.
[17] Moreno-Benet, C., Castells-Ayuso, P., Miranda, I., et al. (2025) Utility of Postoperative Drainage in Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Systematic Review. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología.
[18] Fagotti, L., Ejnisman, L., Miyahara, H.d.S., Gurgel, H.d.M.C., Croci, A.T. and Vicente, J.R.N. (2018) Use of Closed Suction Drainage after Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), 53, 236-243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] 李新天, 王炜, 边焱焱, 等. 全髋关节置换术后放置闭式负压引流管与不放的对比研究[J]. 中华骨与关节外科杂志, 2018, 11(6): 412-415.