Sathish Muthu1,2, Eswar Ramakrishnan3,4, Karthick Kumar Natarajan5,4, Girinivasan Chellamuthu6,4. 1. Government Hospital, Velayuthampalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu, India. drsathishmuthu@gmail.com. 2. Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. drsathishmuthu@gmail.com. 3. Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Madras Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, India. 4. Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 5. Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital and Medical College, Sion, Mumbai, India. 6. Ganga Hospitals, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis, evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the literature evidence available to support the usage of wound drain in various scenarios of spine surgery and provide an evidence summary on the surgical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches adhering to PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till April 2020. Quality appraisal was done as per Cochrane ROB tool, and evidence synthesis was done as per GRADE approach. Five domains of spine surgery with associated key questions were identified. Evidence tables were generated for each question and critical appraisal done as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (9-RCTs, 4-prospective studies, 10-retrospective studies) were included. Analysis of studies in cervical spine either by anterior or posterior approach and single/multilevel thoracolumbar spinal surgeries did not show any evidence of reduction in surgical site infection (SSI) or haematoma formation with the use of drain. Deformity correction surgeries and surgeries done for trauma or tumour involving spine also did not find any added benefit from the use of wound drains despite increasing the total blood loss. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this review suggests that routine use of drain in various domains of spine surgery does not reduce the risk of SSI and their absence did not increase the risk of haematoma formation. The current best evidence is presented with its limitations. High-quality studies to address their use in spine surgeries in cervical, trauma, and tumour domains are required to further strengthen the evidence synthesised from available literature.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis, evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the literature evidence available to support the usage of wound drain in various scenarios of spine surgery and provide an evidence summary on the surgical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches adhering to PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till April 2020. Quality appraisal was done as per Cochrane ROB tool, and evidence synthesis was done as per GRADE approach. Five domains of spine surgery with associated key questions were identified. Evidence tables were generated for each question and critical appraisal done as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (9-RCTs, 4-prospective studies, 10-retrospective studies) were included. Analysis of studies in cervical spine either by anterior or posterior approach and single/multilevel thoracolumbar spinal surgeries did not show any evidence of reduction in surgical site infection (SSI) or haematoma formation with the use of drain. Deformity correction surgeries and surgeries done for trauma or tumour involving spine also did not find any added benefit from the use of wound drains despite increasing the total blood loss. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this review suggests that routine use of drain in various domains of spine surgery does not reduce the risk of SSI and their absence did not increase the risk of haematoma formation. The current best evidence is presented with its limitations. High-quality studies to address their use in spine surgeries in cervical, trauma, and tumour domains are required to further strengthen the evidence synthesised from available literature.