150
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review Article

The efficacy of post-operative drains for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

&
Pages 3-11 | Received 20 Jun 2023, Accepted 29 Aug 2023, Published online: 12 Sep 2023
 

Abstract

Background

Controversy remains with the use of post-operative subfascial drains for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, with limited guidelines and a paucity of conclusive evidence. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis was to analyse and collate an evidence summary to determine the efficacy of such drains.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline (2002–2022.11), PubMed (2003-2022.11), Scopus (2002-2022.11), Cochrane Library (2015-2022.11) databases and reference lists of articles was conducted as per Cochrane systematic reviews standards. All relevant RCTs and NRCTs were included in this study. Data was extracted in a standardised form and analysed with RevMan version 5.4.1. Bias was assessed with RoB2 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-E tool for NRCTs.

Results

Two RCTs (136 patients) and five NRCTs (7563 patients) were included. These had a moderate to high risk of bias, except for one very high-risk article. Meta-analysis results showed no significant differences for post-operative haematoma (P = 0.31), surgical site infection (P = 0.84), take back to theatre (P = 0.27), length of stay (P = 0.34), and estimated blood loss (P = 0.09). Dysphagia (P = 0.002) and median operative time (P = 0.02) were significantly increased in the drain cohort.

Conclusion

The low quality of available data in the included studies is insufficient to estimate the effect of post-operative drains for elective spondylotic ACDF. The findings suggest that if the decision to leave a drain in is left to the surgeon, then there is no difference in the rates of POH, SSI, LOS, or take back to the theatre. The significant association of dysphagia and increased operative time with drains, and the non-significant trend towards increased EBL with drains, must be considered in the context in which procedures may influence the decision to place drains. The results could not be stratified by various confounders that affect the decision-making process, including the number of levels operated. Due to the decreased quality and amount of evidence available, large-scale RCTs that adequately account for confounders should be performed.

View correction statement:
Correction

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Spatenkova et al.Citation8 for sharing raw data that contributed to the present meta-analysis. They also thank Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation (QCIF) for statistical consultation.

Author contributions

Authors AL and AC conceived the design of the study. AL completed the search process, clarifying any uncertainties with AC. AL prepared the manuscript, AC revised and contributed. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2023.2264067)

Additional information

Funding

No funding was sought for this research.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 764.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.