-
Geburtsh Frauenheilk · May 1991
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial[Slit drainage versus Redon drainage in a clinical comparison--initial experiences with a new kind of wound drainage system].
- P Brandner, K J Neis, A Hettenbach, and W Schmidt.
- Universitäts-Frauenklinik und Poliklinik Homburg/Saar.
- Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 1991 May 1; 51 (5): 393-7.
AbstractIn a prospective, randomised study we compared the clinical properties of the established Redon drain with a new type of drain called "slit drain". Both types of drains were examined regarding the amount of drained fluid, the time elapsing until removal of the drain, the frequency of occlusion of the lumen as well as the patient's pain and the required force at extraction of the drain. The statistical analysis showed both drains to have equal abilities in draining of fluid if they were used under vacuum conditions. If used as nonsuction drains, the new device was able to drain more fluid than the established type of drain (p less than 0.05). Statistically relevant advantages of the slit drain were seen in a lower rate of obstruction of the lumen, a higher amount of drained fluid (as non-suction device) as well as an easier and less painful extraction.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.