Observational studyMedicine2020
Drainage after posterior single-level instrumented lumbar fusion: Natural pressure vs negative pressure.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Closed-suction drainage in thoracolumbar spinal surgery-clinical routine without evidence? a systematic review.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 · 2022Pooled it
- Gravity-drain versus closed-suction subfascial drainage following lumbar decompression and fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Research trends and clustering analysis of postoperative infections following lumbar interbody fusion: a bibliometric study.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Suction-induced intradural nerve root kinking following lumbar decompression: A rare mechanical complication with radiographic resolution.Surgical neurology international · 2025Article
- When to remove? Evaluation of postoperative drainage volume after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Negative versus natural drainage after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A prospective randomized study.Brain & spine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.