Cargando…

Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure

Recent findings have shown a trend toward recommending against the routine use of drains in spinal surgery because it carries the risk for potential complications. However, most surgeons still use closed suction drainage to prevent hematoma formation. This study is to compare the clinical outcomes b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Tao, Chang, Hengrui, Liu, Kaiyu, Shi, Mingxin, Song, Chengjie, Meng, Xianzhong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7035085/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32049842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019154
_version_ 1783500004513546240
author Chen, Tao
Chang, Hengrui
Liu, Kaiyu
Shi, Mingxin
Song, Chengjie
Meng, Xianzhong
author_facet Chen, Tao
Chang, Hengrui
Liu, Kaiyu
Shi, Mingxin
Song, Chengjie
Meng, Xianzhong
author_sort Chen, Tao
collection PubMed
description Recent findings have shown a trend toward recommending against the routine use of drains in spinal surgery because it carries the risk for potential complications. However, most surgeons still use closed suction drainage to prevent hematoma formation. This study is to compare the clinical outcomes between natural pressure drainage and negative pressure drainage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Consecutive 132 patients who underwent spinal fusion in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University and met the inclusion criteria were reviewed from January 2018 to January 2019 and divided into negative pressure drainage group and natural pressure drainage group according to different pressure drainage. There were 64 patients who had a negative pressure drainage placed and 68 patients who had a natural pressure drainage placed. Demographics, intraoperative blood loss, operative room time, drainage volume at the 1st postoperative day, total volume of postoperative drainage, the total drainage days, postoperative temperature, and postoperative complications (wound infection, symptomatic hematoma) were compared between the 2 groups. The median drainage volume at the 1st postoperative day in negative pressure group was 204.89 ± 95.19 mL, while in natural pressure group, it was 141.00 ± 52.19 mL (P = .000). The median total volume of postoperative drainage in negative pressure group was 378.06 ± 117.98 mL, while in natural pressure group, it was 249.32 ± 70.74 mL (P = .000). The median total drainage days between natural pressure group and negative pressure group were obviously different (2.93 ± 0.55 vs 3.51 ± 0.71 days, P = .000). There was no difference in patient characteristics, operative data, postoperative temperature, and complications. Natural pressure drainage significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume and indwelling time, but did not increase postoperative complications. Therefore, it may offer an alternative to negative pressure drainage and is as safe and effective as negative pressure drainage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7035085
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70350852020-03-10 Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure Chen, Tao Chang, Hengrui Liu, Kaiyu Shi, Mingxin Song, Chengjie Meng, Xianzhong Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 Recent findings have shown a trend toward recommending against the routine use of drains in spinal surgery because it carries the risk for potential complications. However, most surgeons still use closed suction drainage to prevent hematoma formation. This study is to compare the clinical outcomes between natural pressure drainage and negative pressure drainage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Consecutive 132 patients who underwent spinal fusion in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University and met the inclusion criteria were reviewed from January 2018 to January 2019 and divided into negative pressure drainage group and natural pressure drainage group according to different pressure drainage. There were 64 patients who had a negative pressure drainage placed and 68 patients who had a natural pressure drainage placed. Demographics, intraoperative blood loss, operative room time, drainage volume at the 1st postoperative day, total volume of postoperative drainage, the total drainage days, postoperative temperature, and postoperative complications (wound infection, symptomatic hematoma) were compared between the 2 groups. The median drainage volume at the 1st postoperative day in negative pressure group was 204.89 ± 95.19 mL, while in natural pressure group, it was 141.00 ± 52.19 mL (P = .000). The median total volume of postoperative drainage in negative pressure group was 378.06 ± 117.98 mL, while in natural pressure group, it was 249.32 ± 70.74 mL (P = .000). The median total drainage days between natural pressure group and negative pressure group were obviously different (2.93 ± 0.55 vs 3.51 ± 0.71 days, P = .000). There was no difference in patient characteristics, operative data, postoperative temperature, and complications. Natural pressure drainage significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume and indwelling time, but did not increase postoperative complications. Therefore, it may offer an alternative to negative pressure drainage and is as safe and effective as negative pressure drainage. Wolters Kluwer Health 2020-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7035085/ /pubmed/32049842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019154 Text en Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
spellingShingle 7100
Chen, Tao
Chang, Hengrui
Liu, Kaiyu
Shi, Mingxin
Song, Chengjie
Meng, Xianzhong
Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure
title Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure
title_full Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure
title_fullStr Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure
title_full_unstemmed Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure
title_short Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure
title_sort drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: natural pressure vs negative pressure
topic 7100
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7035085/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32049842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019154
work_keys_str_mv AT chentao drainageafterposteriorsinglelevelinstrumentedlumbarfusionnaturalpressurevsnegativepressure
AT changhengrui drainageafterposteriorsinglelevelinstrumentedlumbarfusionnaturalpressurevsnegativepressure
AT liukaiyu drainageafterposteriorsinglelevelinstrumentedlumbarfusionnaturalpressurevsnegativepressure
AT shimingxin drainageafterposteriorsinglelevelinstrumentedlumbarfusionnaturalpressurevsnegativepressure
AT songchengjie drainageafterposteriorsinglelevelinstrumentedlumbarfusionnaturalpressurevsnegativepressure
AT mengxianzhong drainageafterposteriorsinglelevelinstrumentedlumbarfusionnaturalpressurevsnegativepressure