Skip to main content

Is a drain tube necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery?

European Spine Journal volume 26, pages 733–737 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate if closed suction wound drainage is necessary in minimally invasive surgery of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

Methods

This is a prospective randomized clinical study. Fifty-six patients who underwent MIS TLIF were randomly divided into groups A (with a closed suction wound drainage) and B (without tube drainage). Surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, timing of ambulation, length of hospital stay and complications were recorded. Patients were followed up for an average of 25.3 months. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale (VAS). Fusion rate was classified with the Bridwell grading system, based on plain radiograph.

Results

Both groups had similar patient demographics. The use of drains had no significant influence on perioperative parameters including operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay and complications. Patients in group B started ambulation 1 day earlier than patients in group A (p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes were comparable between group A and group B.

Conclusion

A drain tube can lead to pain, anxiety and discomfort during the postoperative period. We conclude that drain tubes are not necessary for MIS TLIF. Patients without drains had the benefit of earlier ambulation than those with drains.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Parker MJ, Roberts C (2001) Closed suction surgical wound drainage after orthopaedic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001825

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrew Glennie R, Dea N, Street JT (2015) Dressings and drains in posterior spine surgery and their effect on wound complications. J Clin Neurosci 22:1081–1087

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown MD, Brookfield KF (2004) A randomized study of closed wound suction drainage for extensive lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1066–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanayama M, Oha F, Togawa D, Shigenobu K, Hashimoto T (2010) Is closed-suction drainage necessary for single-level lumbar decompression?: review of 560 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2690–2694

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tomasino A, Lumenta CB (2012) To drain or not to drain: about using wound drainage after instrumented spine procedures. World Neurosurg 77:466–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Waly F, Alzahrani MM, Abduljabbar FH, Landry T, Ouellet J, Moran K, Dettori JR (2015) The outcome of using closed suction wound drains in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review. Global Spine J 5:479–485

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Payne DH, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Barry RL, Kurz LT, Montgomery DM (1996) Efficacy of closed wound suction drainage after single-level lumbar laminectomy. J Spinal Disord 9:401–403

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheng JS, Park P, Le H, Reisner L, Chou D, Mummaneni PV (2013) Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? Neurosurg Focus 35:E6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR (2014) Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1727–1737

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Guan J, Bisson EF, Dailey AT, Hood RS, Schmidt MH (2016) Comparison of clinical outcomes in the national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E416–E421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jin-Tao Q, Yu T, Mei W, Xu-Dong T, Tian-Jian Z, Guo-Hua S, Lei C, Yue H, Zi-Tian W, Yue Z (2015) Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1058–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Li YB, Wang XD, Yan HW, Hao DJ, Liu ZH (2015) The long-term clinical effect of minimal-invasive TLIF technique in 1-segment lumbar disease. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000334

    Google Scholar 

  14. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1385–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, Yue WM (2013) Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:2049–2055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sidhu GS, Henkelman E, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Hilibrand A, Anderson DG, Rihn JA (2014) Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1792–1799

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. von Eckardstein KL, Dohmes JE, Rohde V (2016) Use of closed suction devices and other drains in spinal surgery: results of an online, Germany-wide questionnaire. Eur Spine J 25(3):708–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walid MS, Abbara M, Tolaymat A, Davis JR, Waits KD, Robinson JS 3rd, Robinson JS Jr (2012) The role of drains in lumbar spine fusion. World Neurosurg 77:564–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kogure K, Node Y, Tamaki T, Yamazaki M, Takumi I, Morita A (2015) Indwelling drains are not necessary for patients undergoing one-level anterior cervical fixation surgery. J Nippon Med Sch 82:124–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hofstetter CP, Hofer AS, Wang MY (2015) Economic impact of minimally invasive lumbar surgery. World J Orthop 6(2):190–201

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Eckman Walter W, Hester Lynda, McMillen Michelle (2014) Same-day discharge after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a series of 808 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1806–1812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Werner HP (1990) Complications and risks of suction drainage. Z Gesamte Hyg 36:94–99

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chimenti P, Molinari R (2013) Post-operative spinal epidural hematoma causing American Spinal Injury Association B spinal cord injury in patients with suction wound drains. J Spinal Cord Med 36:213–219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Quraishi NA, Rampersaud YR (2013) Minimal access bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 22(8):1707–1713

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the Division of Spine Surgery, Orthopaedic Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital. We thank Xin-Yi Huang from the Biostatistics Task Force, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, for the statistical assistance.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shi-pai Road, 112, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan, ROC

    Pei-I Hung, Ming-Chau Chang, Po-Hsin Chou, Hsi-Hsien Lin, Shih-Tien Wang & Chien-Lin Liu

  2. School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Pei-I Hung, Ming-Chau Chang, Po-Hsin Chou, Hsi-Hsien Lin, Shih-Tien Wang & Chien-Lin Liu

  3. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Chiayi Branch, Taiwan, ROC

    Pei-I Hung

Authors
  1. Pei-I Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming-Chau Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Po-Hsin Chou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hsi-Hsien Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shih-Tien Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chien-Lin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsi-Hsien Lin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hung, PI., Chang, MC., Chou, PH. et al. Is a drain tube necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery?. Eur Spine J 26, 733–737 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4672-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4672-4

Keywords

  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • MIS TLIF
  • Drain tube
  • Epidural haematoma
  • Infection