The use of suction drains at burch colposuspension and XXXX morbidity.

@entity1 @entity295 @entity260 @entity281 @entity86 @entity5280 @entity3142
To evaluate whether the use of suction drains in the paravescical spaces is associated with the occurrence of @entity260 . @entity1 who underwent to a Burch colposuspension to treat @entity3142 were included. Thirty-seven @entity1 had the placement of suction drains in the paravescical spaces while 25 @entity1 did not. @entity86 morbidity was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events: febrile morbidity, @entity295 , @entity5280 , severe wound @entity281 and infected subfascial haematoma. Febrile morbidity was defined as two oral temperatures greater than 38 degrees C, taken at least 4 h apart, starting 24 h after the operation. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics. The overall incidence of @entity86 morbidity was 22.6%. The proportion of @entity1 with drains was higher in those groups who had @entity260 than in @entity1 with an uneventful postoperative period (78.6% vs 54.1%), although not statistically significant. The power to detect such a difference was only 39% (alpha=0.05). Seven @entity1 developed a wound @entity281 . Of these, five had the placement of suction drains. The placement of suction drains at Burch colposuspension seems to increase the risk of @entity260 . The possible benefits of suction drains must be counterbalanced with possible risks and, therefore, their routine use in Burch colposuspension is questionable.
