Search

Recent findings have shown a trend toward recommending against the routine use of drains in spinal surgery because it carries the risk for potential complications. However, most surgeons still use closed suction drainage to prevent hematoma formation. This study is to compare the clinical outcomes between natural pressure drainage and negative pressure drainage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion.Consecutive 132 patients who underwent spinal fusion in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University and met the inclusion criteria were reviewed from January 2018 to January 2019 and divided into negative pressure drainage group and natural pressure drainage group according to different pressure drainage. There were 64 patients who had a negative pressure drainage placed and 68 patients who had a natural pressure drainage placed. Demographics, intraoperative blood loss, operative room time, drainage volume at the 1st postoperative day, total volume of postoperative drainage, the total drainage days, postoperative temperature, and postoperative complications (wound infection, symptomatic hematoma) were compared between the 2 groups.The median drainage volume at the 1st postoperative day in negative pressure group was 204.89 ± 95.19 mL, while in natural pressure group, it was 141.00 ± 52.19 mL (P = .000). The median total volume of postoperative drainage in negative pressure group was 378.06 ± 117.98 mL, while in natural pressure group, it was 249.32 ± 70.74 mL (P = .000). The median total drainage days between natural pressure group and negative pressure group were obviously different (2.93 ± 0.55 vs 3.51 ± 0.71 days, P = .000). There was no difference in patient characteristics, operative data, postoperative temperature, and complications.Natural pressure drainage significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume and indwelling time, but did not increase postoperative complications. Therefore, it may offer an alternative to negative pressure drainage and is as safe and effective as negative pressure drainage.

Lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) associated with degenerative scoliosis has being increasingly aware by the public and studied by many researchers. Degenerative changes leading to spinal stenosis can precede a spinal deformity which will develop into the de novo scoliosis. There are few studies focusing on the risk factors contributing to the degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) in lumbar spinal stenosis patients. From September, 2017 to December, 2017, 181 patients who were diagnosed with LSCS in the outpatient department of our hospital were enrolled in this retrospective investigation. The patients were divided into 2 groups: DLS group (Cobb angle >10°) and LSCS group. Sex, age, smoking status (yes or no), occupation (heavy or light labor), body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD) and radiographic parameters including the lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), coronal vertical axis, and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) are all evaluated as potential risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver-operating characteristic curves were used to identify potential risk factors. Forty-five of 181 patients were diagnosed with DLS and involved in the DLS group. There were significant differences between the 2 groups in BMI (P 25.57 kg/m2 (AOR 1.270, 95% CI 1.040–1.551, P = .019), and SVA >3.98 cm (AOR 3.651, 95% CI 2.226–5.990, P 25.57 kg/m2, and SVA >3.98 cm were the potential risk factors for the formation of degenerative lumbar scoliosis based on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Background:The application of tubular microscopes discectomy (TMD) was supposed to have similar or better results than conventional microdiscectomy (CMD). However, this conclusion had not been verified by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the effic