ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2020
Choice and management of negative pressure drainage in anterior cervical surgery.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2020. 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.
- Natural pressure drainage versus negative pressure drainage following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degeneration disease: a prospective cohort study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative unobstructed drainage is an important measure for avoiding hematoma formation and preventing complications from anterior cervical surgery.
aimTo discuss the characteristics and key points of clinical management of two types of commonly used negative pressure drainage systems in clinical settings.
methodsTwo types of commonly used silica gel negative pressure drainage balls and a type of gastrointestinal decompression apparatus were fully emptied and then injected with different amounts of water and air. Following this, the negative pressure values of the three devices were measured. Meanwhile, we undertook a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 1328 patients who had been treated with different negative pressure drainage apparatuses during their anterior cervical surgery in our department between January 2007 and January 2018.
resultsAs the amount of injected air or water increased, the negative pressure of the silica gel negative pressure drainage ball decreased rapidly, dropping to zero when 150 mL of water or air was injected. In contrast, the negative pressure of gastrointestinal decompression apparatus decreased slowly, maintaining an ideal value even when 300 mL of water or air was injected. And statistical analysis demonstrated that patients who had been treated with the gastrointestinal decompression apparatus were less likely to develop severe complications than those who had been treated with the silica gel negative pressure drainage ball (
conclusionThis study showed that the gastrointestinal decompression apparatus has the advantages of large suction capacity, long duration of continuous negative pressure, and good drainage effect, all of which are the favorable factors for the use of this apparatus for negative pressure drainage in anterior cervical surgery.
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.