Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28190206›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017

The current state of the evidence for the use of drains in spinal surgery: systematic review.

Salil B Patel, William Griffiths-Jones, Conor S Jones, Dino Samartzis, Andrew J Clarke, Shahid Khan, Oliver M Stokes

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06820736 (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Of Drainage Techniques After One- Or Two-Level Open Posterior Lumbar Decompression Or Decompression And Fusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06820736 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Of Drainage Techniques After One- Or Two-Level Open Posterior Lumbar Decompression Or Decompression And Fusion

TypeinterventionalSponsorTwin Cities Spine CenterRan2025 to 2040Enrolled975ConditionsComplications, PostoperativeArmsDrain
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk-benefit analysis of wound drain usage in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis with evidence summary.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Role of closed drain after multi-level posterior spinal surgery in adults: a randomised open-label superiority trial.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in spine surgery.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022
    Article
  9. Lumbar surgical drains do not increase the risk of infections in patients undergoing spine surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Salil B PatelExeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
William Griffiths-JonesExeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Conor S JonesExeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Dino SamartzisDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Andrew J ClarkeExeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Shahid KhanExeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Oliver M StokesExeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. oliverstokes@hotmail.com.
Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBPeninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry · GBPrincess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSearch for evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of drains used in spinal surgeries.

methodPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for articles pertaining to the use of drains in all types of spinal surgery. The bibliographies of relevant studies were searched for additional papers that met the initial inclusion criteria. Level I and II studies were scored according to guidelines in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. We utilised the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design (PICOS) method to define our study eligibility criteria.

resultsNineteen papers were identified: four level I studies, eight level III studies and seven level IV studies. The four level I, involving the randomization of patients into 'drain' and 'non-drain' groups, identified a total of 363 patients. Seven of the eight level III retrospective studies concluded that the use of drains did not reduce complications. Two of the seven level IV studies agreed with this conclusion. The remaining five level IV studies reported the benefits of lumbar drainage following dural tears.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of published literature on the use of drains following spinal surgery. This is the first study to assess the evidence for the benefits of drains post-operatively in spinal surgery. The identified studies have shown that drains do not reduce the incidence of complications in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, one and two level posterior cervical fusions, lumbar laminectomies, lumbar decompressions or discectomies and posterior spinal fusion for adolescent scoliosis. Further level I and II studies are needed.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresDrainageHumansPostoperative ComplicationsSpineDrainsDuraPaediatricReviewSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID28190206
OpenAlexW2587118085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.