Background Closed-suction drainage is commonly used for prevention of postoperative hematoma and associated neurologic compromise after lumbar decompression, but it remains unclear whether suction drainage reduces postoperative complications. Questions/purposes We evaluated the efficacy of closedsuction drainage in single-level lumbar decompression surgery. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed 560 patients who underwent single-level lumbar decompression or discectomy. We routinely used closed-suction drainage in all spinal surgeries until July 2003, and thereafter, we did not use drains in single-level lumbar decompression surgery. These two groups (298 patients in the group that received drains, 262 in the group that did not receive drains) were compared for rates of wound infection and epidural hematoma. Results Mean operating time (55 versus 56 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss (64 versus 57 mL) were not different between the two groups. None of 560 patients had a wound infection requiring surgical intervention. The rate of postoperative hematoma was 0.7% in the group that received drains (two of 298 patients) and 0% in the group that did not receive drains (zero of 262 patients).Conclusions In this study, the risk of wound infection and hematomas in single-level lumbar decompression surgery was not influenced by use of a drain. The use of postoperative wound drainage in patients with potential risk for epidural bleeding in situations such as multiple-level decompression, instrumentation surgery, anticoagulant therapy, trauma, and tumors or metastases needs additional study.
The current study demonstrated the advantages of anterior spinal reconstruction in osteoporotic vertebral collapse: (1) safe and reliable decompression could be performed, and (2) 80% of patients were successfully treated with anterior spinal reconstruction alone. However, patients with multilevel corpectomies and/or severe osteoporosis highly required posterior reinforcement.
BackgroundTeriparatide (recombinant human parathyroid hormone 1–34) is increasingly used for the treatment of severe osteoporosis because it stimulates bone formation and may potentially enhance fracture healing. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of teriparatide versus a bisphosphonate on radiographic outcomes in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).MethodsA total of 98 patients undergoing non-operative treatment for recent single-level OVCF were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-eight patients were treated by a once-daily subcutaneous injection of 20 micrograms of teriparatide (TPD group), whereas 60 patients received 35 mg of alendronate weekly (BP group). Except for these medications, the same treatment protocol was applied to both groups. The radiographic assessments included union status, vertebral kyphosis, and mid-vertebral body height. The rates of fracture site surgical intervention were also compared between the two groups. The mean follow-up period was 27 months (median 22.5, range 2 – 75 months).ResultsCox regression analysis showed that TPD reduced the time-to-union (adjusted relative hazard ratio: 1.86, 95% C.I.: 1.21 – 2.83). The union rate at six months after treatment was 89% in the TPD group and 68% in the BP group; the surgical intervention rate was significantly higher in the TPD group (p = 0.026, adjusted odds ratio: 8.15, 95% C.I.: 2.02 – 43.33). The change in local kyphosis was 4.6° in the TPD group and 3.8° in the BP group (p = 0.495, paired t-test). The change of mid-vertebral body height was 4.4 mm in the TPD group and 3.4 mm in the BP group (p = 0.228, paired t-test). Fracture site surgical interventions were not required in the TPD group; however, two patients in the BP group eventually underwent surgical treatment for symptomatic non-union or vertebral collapse.ConclusionsThis retrospective study suggests that teriparatide may enhance fracture healing and improve the union rate in OVCF.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.