ArticleSurgical neurology international2022
Variability in wound closure technique in midline posterior lumbar fusion surgery. International survey and standardized closure technique proposal.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wound closure techniques for spinoplastic surgery: a review of the literature.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Wound healing after intracutaneous vs. staple-assisted skin closure in lumbar, non-instrumented spine surgery: a multicenter prospective randomized trial.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Trial
- Wound management practices in surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Surgeon Preferences Worldwide in Wound Drain Utilization in Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Pathologies.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Uncommon presentation of a chronic recurrent symptomatic encapsulated calcified postoperative paraspinal lumbar hematoma: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2025Article
- Commercial suture passer improves efficiency and ease of use versus conventional needle in minimally invasive thoracolumbar fascia closure: a cadaveric analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.