ArticleBrain & spine2023
Negative versus natural drainage after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A prospective randomized study.
Article in Brain & spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends and clustering analysis of postoperative infections following lumbar interbody fusion: a bibliometric study.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite of their extensive use, drains remain controversial without clear guidelines, and there is unclear evidence on drain use in spine procedures. Negative pressure drainage is theoretically more effective in preventing postoperative hematomas. On the contrary, it may result in excessive drainage and blood loss.The aim of this study was to compare the outcome between the uses of negative versus natural drainage in single level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Research question: The aim is to compare between negative versus natural drainage after single-level PLIF as regard to postoperative wound infection, wound healing, temperature, pain and neurological deficits. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized study of consecutive PLIF patients at a single level for lumbar disc prolapse was performed between January 2019 and January 2020. The patients were randomly assigned to either the negative suction drainage group or natural drainage group. Negative suction was created by maximum compression of the reservoir to create negative pressure. In the other group, natural pressure drainage was kept without any negative pressure.Our study included a total of 62 patients who met the inclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups; 33 patients had negative suction drains and 29 patients had natural drainage. There were 32 female (51.6%) and 30 male (48.4%). Their ages ranged between of 23-69 years, with a mean age of 42.11 ± 8.89 years. Results: Drainage volume was statistically higher in the negative group on the day of surgery (day 0) as well as the 1st and second days after. However, no significant differences were observed as regards to postoperative temperature, pain, wound infection, temperature, or neurological deficits. Discussion &conclusion: In this prospective randomized study, our results revealed that natural drainage in short term can reduce the total amount of blood in the drain, and therefore the blood loss without significant differences in postoperative wound infection, wound healing, temperature, pain, or neurological deficits in single-level PLIF.
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.