One- or Two-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion without Closed-Suction Wound Drainage

Ahmed Rizk, Andy Ottenbacher
{"title":"One- or Two-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion without Closed-Suction Wound Drainage","authors":"Ahmed Rizk, Andy Ottenbacher","doi":"10.21608/ESJ.2019.6618.1085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Data: Although many surgeons stopped using closed-suction drainage following simple spine decompression surgery, there is still debate regarding the necessity of wound drainage in more extensive lumbar spine surgical procedures. Purpose: To estimate the advantages and disadvantages of performing one- or two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) without closed-suction drainage.  Study Design: Retrospective clinical cohort study. Patients and Methods: The Fast-Track technique was performed in 36 consecutive TLIF surgeries between January and September 2016 without using wound drainage. Twenty-eight patients were females and 8 were males. Thirty patients had single-level TLIF and 6 double-level TLIF. The results of these patient series were retrospectively analyzed. The variables that were reviewed included blood transfusion, postoperative temperature, postoperative pain and the use of opiates during hospital stay, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as neurological deficit, hematoma, postoperative wound infection, and revision surgery. Results: There was no postoperative allogenic blood transfusion; the patients did not develop postoperative neurological deficit; there were no cases of surgical revision as a result of significant postoperative hematoma or infection. There were two cases (5.5%) of revision surgery due to persistent CSF leakage from the wound. Four patients (11.1%) developed serous discharge from the wound, which was treated conservatively with frequent dressing and antibiotics. Four patients (11.1%) developed transient postoperative fever. The mean pain score in the first 2 days after surgery assessed by the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was 6.1 points, and additional opiate in the first 2 postoperative days was mandatory in 30 patients (83.3%). Conclusion: Performing one- or two-level lumbar decompression and fusion without closed-suction wound drainage did not increase the rate postoperative infection or hematoma formation. Additionally, none of our patients required postoperative blood transfusion. (2018ESJ168)","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ESJ.2019.6618.1085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Data: Although many surgeons stopped using closed-suction drainage following simple spine decompression surgery, there is still debate regarding the necessity of wound drainage in more extensive lumbar spine surgical procedures. Purpose: To estimate the advantages and disadvantages of performing one- or two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) without closed-suction drainage.  Study Design: Retrospective clinical cohort study. Patients and Methods: The Fast-Track technique was performed in 36 consecutive TLIF surgeries between January and September 2016 without using wound drainage. Twenty-eight patients were females and 8 were males. Thirty patients had single-level TLIF and 6 double-level TLIF. The results of these patient series were retrospectively analyzed. The variables that were reviewed included blood transfusion, postoperative temperature, postoperative pain and the use of opiates during hospital stay, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as neurological deficit, hematoma, postoperative wound infection, and revision surgery. Results: There was no postoperative allogenic blood transfusion; the patients did not develop postoperative neurological deficit; there were no cases of surgical revision as a result of significant postoperative hematoma or infection. There were two cases (5.5%) of revision surgery due to persistent CSF leakage from the wound. Four patients (11.1%) developed serous discharge from the wound, which was treated conservatively with frequent dressing and antibiotics. Four patients (11.1%) developed transient postoperative fever. The mean pain score in the first 2 days after surgery assessed by the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was 6.1 points, and additional opiate in the first 2 postoperative days was mandatory in 30 patients (83.3%). Conclusion: Performing one- or two-level lumbar decompression and fusion without closed-suction wound drainage did not increase the rate postoperative infection or hematoma formation. Additionally, none of our patients required postoperative blood transfusion. (2018ESJ168)
一级或二级经椎间孔腰椎间融合术无闭合性抽吸伤口引流
背景资料:尽管许多外科医生在简单的脊椎减压手术后停止使用闭合吸引引流,但在更广泛的腰椎手术中,伤口引流的必要性仍存在争议。目的:评估在不进行闭式吸引引流的情况下进行一次或两次经椎间孔腰椎融合术(TLIF)的优缺点。研究设计:回顾性临床队列研究。患者和方法:在2016年1月至9月期间,在不使用伤口引流的情况下,在连续36例TLIF手术中使用了快速通道技术。28名患者为女性,8名为男性。30例患者出现单级TLIF,6例患者出现双级TLIF。对这些患者系列的结果进行回顾性分析。回顾的变量包括输血、术后体温、术后疼痛和住院期间阿片类药物的使用、手术持续时间、住院时间以及术后并发症的发生率,如神经功能缺损、血肿、术后伤口感染和翻修手术。结果:术后无异体输血;患者术后未出现神经功能缺损;没有因术后出现明显血肿或感染而进行手术翻修的病例。有两例(5.5%)因伤口持续性脑脊液渗漏而进行翻修手术。4名患者(11.1%)出现伤口浆液性分泌物,对其进行了保守治疗,经常使用敷料和抗生素。4名患者(11.1%)出现短暂的术后发热。视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估的术后前2天的平均疼痛评分为6.1分,30名患者(83.3%)必须在术后前两天服用阿片类药物。此外,我们没有一名患者需要术后输血。(2018ESJ168)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信