Comparative study on the selection of drainage methods in posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Abstract

Abstract Objective To compare and analyze the clinical effects of bilateral natural pressure drainage and negative pressure drainage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) to provide a reference for selecting drainage methods after lumbar surgery. Methods A retrospective cohort study, 281 patients who underwent single-segment PLIF in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2020 and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study, including 132 males and 149 females, aged 22–85 years, with an average of (53.62 ± 11.23) years. According to different postoperative incision drainage methods determined by the random number table method before surgery, they were divided into the natural pressure drainage group and negative pressure drainage group, both of which were bilateral drainage. The general observation indexes and perioperative-related indexes were recorded and analyzed. Results There were 143 cases in the natural pressure drainage group and 138 cases in the negative pressure drainage group. There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, disease type, blood pressure on the day of surgery, preoperative albumin, hemoglobin, platelet, prothrombin time, and intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). The albumin on the first postoperative day in the natural pressure drainage group was higher than that in the negative pressure drainage group [(33.24 ± 3.52) vs. (32.17 ± 5.03), P < 0.05]; The hemoglobin on the first postoperative day in the natural pressure drainage group was higher than that in the negative pressure drainage group [(126.01 ± 15.03) vs. (115.19 ± 16.25), P < 0.01]; The drainage volume on the first postoperative day in the natural pressure drainage group was lower than that in the negative pressure drainage group [(93.25 ± 63.58) ml vs. (119.46 ± 54.48) ml, P < 0.01]; The total postoperative drainage volume in the natural pressure drainage group was lower than that in the negative pressure drainage group [(355.60 ± 189.69) ml vs. (434.37 ± 149.12) ml, P < 0.01]; The indwelling time of drainage tube in the natural pressure drainage group was lower than that in the negative pressure drainage group [(3.29 ± 1.17) d vs. (3.45 ± 0.97) d, P < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in platelet count on the first postoperative day, postoperative hospital stays, and complications (incision infection and hematoma) between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion Bilateral natural pressure drainage and negative pressure drainage can achieve good drainage effects after PLIF, but patients with natural pressure drainage have less loss of albumin and hemoglobin, less drainage volume, and shorter drainage tube indwelling time, which is worthy of clinical application.