A Matched Cohort Analysis of Drain Usage in Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) Study

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

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.

Drains in Spine Surgery for Degenerative Disc Diseases: A Literature Review to Determine Its Usage

No guidelines currently exist for surgeons to follow regarding drain use after spine surgery for degenerative disc disease. Therefore, we conducted a literature review to determine what situations warrant drain placement versus those which do not. When placed, we further investigate optimal drain duration. The goal of this article is to provide spine surgeons insight into the current literature and guidance when deciding if a drain should be used or discontinued. We performed a PubMed search and analyzed 44peer-reviewed journal articles. Only studies that had the full article available were included. The highest-quality studies that were reviewed, demonstrated that in most situations using a drain is not associated with superior outcomes. It revealed that when drains are retained for a longer duration they run a greater risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Additionally, drains are associated with increased blood loss, a greater chance of requiring blood transfusions, and longer hospital stays. We conclude that drains are currently being overused in spine surgery for cases of degenerative disc disease, which exposes patients to unnecessary complications while providing minimal benefit.