ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Procedure-Specific Postoperative Drainage Strategy in Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Quantitative Evaluation of Drain Output and Endoscopic Bleeding Findings.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative drain use after transforaminal full-endoscopic spine surgery (TF-FESS) remains controversial, and procedure-specific criteria are not well defined. This study aimed to determine whether postoperative bleeding risk-quantified by postoperative drain output and intraoperative endoscopic bleeding findings-differs by TF-FESS procedure and whether these metrics can inform a procedure-specific drainage strategy.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive TF-FESS cases: 65 managed with postoperative drains, and 35 managed without drains after an institutional policy change (limited to full-endoscopic discectomy [FED] and lumbar foraminotomy). Procedures included FED, full-endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (FELF), full-endoscopic ventral facetectomy (FEVF), transforaminal full-endoscopic lumbar undercutting laminectomy (TELUL), and pars crisscross decompression (pars crisscross). Postoperative drain output was analyzed in the drain group. Intraoperative endoscopic bleeding was assessed at 3 standardized steps: approach/foraminoplasty (step 1), procedure-specific decompression (step 2), and final hemostasis (step 3). Multivariable analysis identified predictors of higher drain output.
resultsDrain output differed significantly among procedures (analysis of variance,
conclusionsBleeding risk in TF-FESS is strongly procedure dependent. Drain-free management was implemented only in a selected low-risk subgroup after a policy change; given the small sample size and the low baseline incidence of symptomatic hematoma, this cohort is not powered to assess safety outcomes, and drain-free observations should be interpreted as descriptive feasibility data. Postoperative drainage should be considered for advanced procedures involving epidural venous plexus manipulation and/or extensive cancellous bone exposure (FEVF/TELUL/pars crisscross). Given the nonrandomized, procedure-dependent drain policy, these findings are hypothesis generating. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A procedure-specific, risk-stratified drainage approach may help optimize postoperative management and patient safety in TF-FESS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.