Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36447891›Full record

ArticleSurgical neurology international2022

Variability in wound closure technique in midline posterior lumbar fusion surgery. International survey and standardized closure technique proposal.

Oscar Josue Montes Aguilar, Karmen Karina Alaniz Sida, Leonardo Álvarez Betancourt, Manuel Dufoo Olvera, Guillermo Ivan Ladewig Bernaldez, Ramón López López, Edith Oropeza Oropeza, Héctor Alonso Tirado Ornelas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical neurology international, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Oscar Josue Montes AguilarDepartment of Spine surgery, Spine Clinic "Dr. Manuel Dufoo Olvera," Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Karmen Karina Alaniz SidaDepartment of Neuroanesthesiology, Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Leonardo Álvarez BetancourtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Manuel Dufoo OlveraDepartment of Spine surgery, Spine Clinic "Dr. Manuel Dufoo Olvera," Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Guillermo Ivan Ladewig BernaldezDepartment of Spine surgery, Spine Clinic "Dr. Manuel Dufoo Olvera," Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Ramón López LópezDepartment of Neurosurgery, Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Edith Oropeza OropezaDepartment of Spine surgery, Spine Clinic "Dr. Manuel Dufoo Olvera," Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.
Héctor Alonso Tirado OrnelasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Specialty Hospital- National Medical Center "La Raza", Mexico City, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Surgical wound complications represent an important risk factor, particularly in multilevel lumbar fusions. However, the literature regarding optimal wound closure techniques for these procedures is limited. Methods: We performed an online survey of 61 spinal surgeons from 11 countries, involving 25 different hospitals. The study included 26 neurosurgeons, 21 orthopedists, and 14 residents (Neurosurgery - 6 and orthopedics 8). The survey contained 17 questions on demographic information, closure techniques, and the use of drainage in posterior lumbar fusion surgery. We then developed a "consensus technique." Results: The proposed standardized closure techniques included: (1) using subfascial gravity drainage (i.e., without suction) with drain removal for <50 ml/day or a maximum duration of 48 h, (2) paraspinal muscle, fascia, and supraspinous ligament closure using interrupted-X stitches 0 or 1 Vicryl or other longer-lasting resorbable suture (i.e., polydioxanone suture), (3) closure of subcutaneous tissue with interrupted inverted Vicryl 2-0 sutures in two planes for subcutaneous tissue greater >25 mm in depth, and (4) skin closure with simple interrupted nylon 3-0 sutures. Conclusion: There is great variability between closure techniques utilized for multilevel posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Here, we have described various standardized/evidence-based proven techniques for the closure of these wounds.

Indexed as

Midline posterior lumbar fusionSpine surgeryStandardized closureWound closure

Identifiers

PMID36447891
PMCPMC9699852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.