• 1.

    Miller CW. Bandages and drains. In: Slatter D, ed. Textbook of small animal surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Science, 2003;244249.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Chintamani, Singhal V, Singh JP, et al. Half versus full vacuum suction drainage after modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer—a prospective randomized clinical trial [ISCRCTN24484328]. BMC Cancer 2005;5:11.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Landis EM. Micro-injection studies of capillary permeability. II. The relation between capillary pressure and the rate at which fluid passes through the walls of single capillaries. Am J Physiol 1927;82:217238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Starling EH. On the absorption of fluids from the connective tissue spaces. J Physiol (Lond) 1896;19:312326.

  • 5.

    Willy C, Sterk J, Gerngross H, et al. Drainage in soft tissue surgery. What is “evidence based”? [in German]. Chirurg 2003;74:108114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Kayashima S, Arai T, Kikuchi M, et al. Suction effusion fluid from skin and constituent analysis: new candidate for interstitial fluid. Am J Physiol Heart Circ 1992;263:16231627.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Svedman C, Yu BB, Ryan TJ, et al. Plasma proteins in a standardised skin mini-erosion (II): effects of extraction pressure. BMC Dermatol 2002;2:4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Hampel NL, Johnson RG. Principles of surgical drains and drainage. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1985;21:2128.

  • 9.

    Graham D, Coit D, Brennan MF. Perforation of the bowel by suction drains. Br J Surg 1993;80:128129.

  • 10.

    Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, et al. Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis. Arch Surg 1998;133:309314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Reed MW, Wyman A, Thomas WE, et al. Perforation of the bowel by suction drains. Br J Surg 1992;79:679.

  • 12.

    Ogeer-Gyles JS, Matthews KA, Boerlin P. Nosocomial infections and antimicrobial resistance in critical care medicine. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2006;16:118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:247278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Eugster S, Schawalder P, Gaschen F, et al. A prospective study of post-operative surgical site infections in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2004;33:542550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980;60:2740.

  • 16.

    Alexander JW, Korelitz J, Alexander NS. Prevention of wound infections. A case for closed suction drainage to remove wound fluids deficient in opsonic proteins. Am J Surg 1976;132:5963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Sutera SP, Skalak R. The history of Poiseuille's law. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1993;25:119.

Advertisement

Evaluation of in vitro performance of suction drains

Zoë J. Halfacree VetMB1, Alan M. Wilson BVMS, PhD2, and Stephen J. Baines VetMB, PhD3
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, England.
  • | 2 Structure and Motion Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, England.
  • | 3 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, England.

Abstract

Objective—To assess the in vitro performance of suction drains.

Sample Population—11 drainage systems (3 rigid drains and 8 compressible drains [2 grenade type, 5 concertina type, and 1 pancake type]).

Procedures—A pressure transducer was connected to the patient end of each drainage system. Serial pressure measurements were obtained during incremental addition and removal of air into the reservoir of each system, followed by incremental addition of water. The volume of air removed to restore the initial suction was recorded. Maximum filling volume was compared with the stated reservoir volume. For compressible drains, the suction generated following 3 compression methods was compared.

Results—The initial suction generated by the drainage systems ranged from −633.4 ± 14.7 mm Hg to −90.1 ± 19.5 mm Hg. Rigid drains had greater initial suction than compressible drains. For all compressible drains, compression with 2 hands, rather than 1, produced greater suction, apart from the pancake-type (200-mL reservoir) drains for which the reverse occurred. For grenade-type drains, rolling the reservoir from apex to base generated greater suction than 1-hand compression. Maximum filling volume was lower than stated for the concertina-type drains with 50-mL, 25-mL, and 400-mL reservoirs and the rigid-type drain with a 200-mL reservoir. As increments of air or water were added, compressible drains lost suction rapidly up to a fill of 20% to 30% and then more gradually. Rigid drains lost suction more slowly.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Drainage systems varied widely in their initial suction and rate of loss of suction during filling.

Contributor Notes

Presented in abstract form at the American College of Veterinary Surgeons Congress, Washington, DC, 2006.

Address correspondence to Ms. Halfacree.