ArticleBMC surgery2024
Advancing the timing of drainage removal: a comprehensive analysis of different drainage removal criteria in patients undergoing short-level lumbar fusion surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo specifically evaluate the safety and benefit of different drainage removal criteria (50 ml and 100 ml per 24 h) in patients undergoing short-level lumbar fusion surgery.
methodsPatients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent short level lumbar fusion with instrumentation between January 2021 and January 2023 were retrospectively recruited in the study. Based on the different criteria for drainage removal, the patients were divided into 2 groups (group A and group B). To control for confounding factors, a 1:1 nearest propensity score matching of significant variation, especially age, gender, BMI, number of fused levels, intraoperative blood loss, and surgical duration, were performed between groups. Perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the risk factors for overall complications.
resultsA total of 1004 eligible patients were reviewed in this study with 676 patients in group A and 328 patients in group B. After propensity score matching, 616 patients, 308 in each group were included in the final analysis. There were significantly more patients getting drainage removed on POD 2 (23.1% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.012) and POD 3 (37.0% vs., 45.1%, p = 0.041) in group B. In addition, patients in group B had earlier postoperative timing of ambulation (3.87 ± 1.12 vs. 2.41 ± 1.34, p = 0.012). No significant difference in symptomatic hematoma and surgical site infection was observed, but there were significant fewer overall complications (10.39% vs. 5.19%, p = 0.016) in the group B. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that postoperative timing of ambulation (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.19-3.97, p < 0.001) was independently associated with overall complications.
conclusionIn this study, we found that the relaxation of the criteria for drainage removal could significantly shorten the length of stay, in addition, it could promote early postoperative ambulation of patients and thus reduce the occurrence of perioperative overall complications.
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.