Modified Hidden Blood Loss Based on Drainage in Posterior Surgery on Lumbar Stenosis Syndrome with Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE: Publications on hidden blood loss (HBL) after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for lumbar spine stenosis syndrome (LSS) have been reported, but the modified HBL (mHBL) was different from HBL obtained by classical formula and there are few studies on lumbar spine hemorrhage with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, the aim of our study is to respectively evaluate the importance of hidden blood loss (HBL) and modified HBL (mHBL) after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients diagnosed with LSS and RA, to explore the correlation between RA activity and HBL as well as mHBL. METHODS: A total of 61 patients (nine males and 52 females) diagnosed with LSS and RA who underwent PLIF were included. Data contained demographics, RA‐related parameters such as duration of RA, Steinbrocker classification (used to evaluated RA activity), the disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), osteoporosis and total knee arthroplasty; operation and hemorrhage parameters. Then HBL and mHBL were calculated by Gross formula and modified formula, respectively. Subgroup analysis on HBL and mHBL was performed based on gender, age (≤60 years and ˃60 years), different number of surgical segments (single segment, double segment, and ≥3 segments), and taking DMARDs or not. ANOVA analysis was performed on HBL and mHBL in different surgery segment number and Steinbrocker classification of RA. Independent sample t‐test was used in comparison of gender and age, as well as in comparison between HBL and mHBL based on whether the patient took DMARDs or not. Furthermore, paired t‐test was used to compare the volume between HBL and mHBL. RESULTS: The mean age and duration of RA was 65.2 ± 9.3 years and 14.3 ± 10.7 years, respectively. There were 13 grade I cases, 34 grade II cases, and 14 grade III cases as assessed by Steinbrocker classification and the most common anti‐RA drugs were DMARDs (57.4%). The mean intraoperative bleeding, drainage, and blood loss in drainage (DBL) was 453.3 ± 377.8 mL, 489.1 ± 253.8 mL, and 304.6 ± 156.3 mL, respectively. There was no difference on HBL and mHBL in gender. HBL and mHBL was larger in patients over 60 years (P = 0.040 and P = 0.023). There were differences in intraoperative blood loss, drainage, and DBL based on different number of segments but not in HBL and mHBL, or on Steinbrocker classification. DBL was lower in DMARDs group than non‐drugged group (P = 0.03), while HBL and mHBL were both of no significance. The comparison of HBL and mHBL showed statistical difference (P < 0.001), suggesting that mHBL volume is larger than HBL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed as LSS with RA have amounts of HBL or mHBL after PLIF. HBL or mHBL is not associated with RA activity, which may not increase in RA patients compared with common ones. Taking DMARDs may reduce postoperative DBL. The fact that mHBL is larger than HBL provides an all‐round basis for measuring factual HBL.