ArticleSpine deformity2023
Drain options after vertebral body tethering.
Article in Spine deformity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of intraoperative topical hemostatic agents on chest tube output and thoracic complications following vertebral body tethering.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- A comparison of patients receiving vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the public and private hospital setting.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Clinical experience and complications with limited pleural dissection combined with a novel, simplified technique for thoracic Redon-like drain in vertebral body tethering.Spine deformity · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSince the introduction of vertebral body tethering (VBT) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), a variety of post-operative chest drainage systems have been utilized. Most surgeons use formal chest tubes with a Pleur-evac, while others use smaller bulb suction drains (e.g., Blake drain). In addition, some centers utilize pleural closure. This multicenter study evaluates whether drain type or pleural closure impact perioperative and 90 day complication rates.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted from three institutions with established VBT programs. All preoperative, perioperative and 90 day postoperative data were analyzed to determine differences in outcomes between three cohorts: standard chest tube (SCT), standard chest tube with pleural closure (SCTPC) and 10 French Bulb drain (BD).
results104 patients were identified for the study. 57 SCT, 25 SCTPC and 22 BD. All data are listed in order: SCT, SCTPC, BD. Length of stay (3.7, 4.3, 3.0 days) was less in the BD group (p = 0.009); post-operative drainage (460, 761, 485 cc) was less in the SCT and BD groups (p < 0.001); intra-operative estimated blood loss (EBL) 146, 382, 64 cc was less in the BD group (p < 0.001). No significant difference in number of days (3.2, 3.2, and 2.8 days) drainage was in place, groups (p = 0.311). Complication profile was similar with 2 chest tube reinsertions in the SCT and one hemothorax that resolved spontaneously in BD group.
conclusionsIn this series of 104 patients, SCT, SCTPC and BD all had a similar safety profile. All three methods were safe and effective in managing post-operative chest drainage after thoracic VBT. In the series, BD group had significantly shorter LOS than both groups that used chest tubes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
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.