ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
Which Criterion for Wound Drain Removal is Better Following Posterior 1-Level or 2-Level Lumbar Fusion With Instrumentation: Time Driven or Output Driven?
Article in Global spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delayed myelopathy caused by cerebrospinal fluid pseudocyst following decompression for thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum: a case report and literature review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Review
- Surgeon Preferences Worldwide in Wound Drain Utilization in Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Pathologies.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Subcutaneous Lumbar Spine Index (SLSI) as a Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infection After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Variability in wound closure technique in midline posterior lumbar fusion surgery. International survey and standardized closure technique proposal.Surgical neurology international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCase-control study.
objectivesTo compare the outcomes of 2 different criteria (time driven and output driven) for wound drain removal and identify which one is better.
methods743 patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion with instrumentation involving 1 or 2 motion segments were enrolled in this study. Based on the different criteria for drain removal, the patients were divided into 2 groups. The drains were discontinued by time driven (postoperative day 2) in group I and output driven (<50 ml per day) in group II. Demographic characteristics, perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.
resultsThe demographic characteristics in both groups were comparable. The postoperative drain output, total blood loss, postoperative timing of ambulation, and postoperative duration of hospital stay in group I were lower than those in group II (
conclusionsThis study reveals that there are more benefits of wound drain removal by time driven than that by output driven for patients undergoing posterior 1-level or 2-level lumbar fusion with instrumentation, including less postoperative drain output, less total blood loss, earlier postoperative timing of ambulation and less postoperative duration of hospital stay without increasing the incidence of postoperative SSI or symptomatic SEH.
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.