Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32700123›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 Society2020

Risk-benefit analysis of wound drain usage in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis with evidence summary.

Sathish Muthu, Eswar Ramakrishnan, Karthick Kumar Natarajan, Girinivasan Chellamuthu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sathish MuthuGovernment Hospital, Velayuthampalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu, India. drsathishmuthu@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7143-4354
Eswar RamakrishnanInstitute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Madras Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, India.
Karthick Kumar NatarajanLokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital and Medical College, Sion, Mumbai, India.
Girinivasan ChellamuthuGanga Hospitals, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Orthopaedic Research Group · INLokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital and Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College · INMadras Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review, meta-analysis, evidence synthesis.

objectivesTo analyse the literature evidence available to support the usage of wound drain in various scenarios of spine surgery and provide an evidence summary on the surgical practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches adhering to PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till April 2020. Quality appraisal was done as per Cochrane ROB tool, and evidence synthesis was done as per GRADE approach. Five domains of spine surgery with associated key questions were identified. Evidence tables were generated for each question and critical appraisal done as per the GRADE approach.

resultsTwenty-three studies (9-RCTs, 4-prospective studies, 10-retrospective studies) were included. Analysis of studies in cervical spine either by anterior or posterior approach and single/multilevel thoracolumbar spinal surgeries did not show any evidence of reduction in surgical site infection (SSI) or haematoma formation with the use of drain. Deformity correction surgeries and surgeries done for trauma or tumour involving spine also did not find any added benefit from the use of wound drains despite increasing the total blood loss.

conclusionEvidence from this review suggests that routine use of drain in various domains of spine surgery does not reduce the risk of SSI and their absence did not increase the risk of haematoma formation. The current best evidence is presented with its limitations. High-quality studies to address their use in spine surgeries in cervical, trauma, and tumour domains are required to further strengthen the evidence synthesised from available literature.

Indexed as

DrainageSurgical Wound InfectionHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSpineGRADEHaematomaSpine surgerySSIWound drain

Identifiers

PMID32700123
OpenAlexW3044597224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.