ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Is a wound drain needed routinely after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative subfascial wound drains are commonly used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries to help lower the risk of complications from postoperative haematomas (POHs) and surgical site infections (SSIs). However, controversy surrounding their efficacy remains, due to limited guidelines and a lack of conclusive evidence. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether placing a drain routinely offers any therapeutic benefit for postsurgical outcomes in ACDF intervention, hence re-evaluating their routine use in clinical practice. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed on patients who underwent ACDF procedures between January 2013 and December 2023 at a tertiary neurosurgical centre in the UK. Patients were categorized into drain and nondrain cohorts and stratified according to several predictor variables including baseline demographics, and clinico-social characteristics. The primary outcome measure investigated in this study was the incidence of postoperative complications and length of stay (LOS) between those who received a drain and those who did not. Results: A total of 1,938 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Of these patients, 1,614 (83.3%) had subfascial drains placed during surgery. Baseline demographics differed slightly between both cohorts, with patients in the drain group having a higher median age (p=.02), and a significantly higher proportion were male (p=.02), hypertensive (p<.01), drank alcohol (p<.01) and smoked (p=.04). Between the 2 groups, we observed no significant difference in rates of reoperation for POHs (p=.43), SSIs (p=.85) or LOS (p=.18). Conclusions: Our study found no significant differences in the incidence of POHs or SSIs between post-ACDF patients with drains and those without, nor was there any difference in postoperative length of stay between the groups. Therefore, our results do not support the routine use of subfascial drains in clinical practice.
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.