ReviewCureus2024
Role of Spinal Surgery Drainage Techniques in Postoperative Outcomes: Insights From a Comprehensive Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical site infections and the discharge care of surgical drains following spinal fusions: a qualitative inquiry.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postoperative management often demands the introduction of several strategies in an attempt to minimize complication rates. One of the routine strategies includes the use of spinal drains, which have been questioned for their efficacy in improving postoperative outcomes. However, its role in postoperative outcomes is still debated. In general, this elucidation of an extensive literature review supports the synthesis of current evidence regarding the role of spinal drains in infection rates, hematoma formation, and overall patient recovery. A comprehensive search of PubMed from 2000 to 2024 was performed, focusing on studies investigating the use of spinal drains in spinal surgeries and their associated postoperative outcomes. It followed the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The inclusion criteria were studies related to spinal surgeries, excluding case reports, reviews, and editorials, and limited to articles published in English. Quality assessment was performed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of 19 studies were included, with different designs and varied sample sizes. The sample size was from 25 to 2,446 patients. Findings on infection rates were mixed; while one group of studies showed no significant differences in patients with and without drains, another group showed a reduced rate of reoperation for surgical site infections in patients with drains. In general, hematoma formation rates were reported to be the same across groups, while a few studies indicated that drains were more effective in managing wound exudates compared to no drains. Recovery outcomes indicated that patients who had a wound drain were more likely to stay in the hospital longer, although an improvement was noticed with time-driven wound drain removal, which resulted in shorter hospital stays and earlier ambulation. The use of spinal drains in postoperative spinal surgery presents both benefits and drawbacks. Spinal drains can assist in the management of wound exudates, and earlier detection of infection complications increases hospital stays and complications. Indeed, whether to use spinal drains or not should be an individual decision, weighing the potential benefits and risks. Future studies need to be done in order to establish clear guidelines for the use of drainage systems in various spinal surgical cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.