الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 62 |  |  |
| | | from | 62 | | |
Abstract
Drains are used in spine surgeries to prevent postoperative complications such as epidural hematomas and infection. In this study, we aimed at comparing the outcome of using suction drains, whether active or passive, in the treatment of single-level PLIF regarding possible postoperative complications such as seroma, dehiscence, local infection, and pain.
This study involved the assessment of the postoperative results of 62 adult patients who underwent a single-level PLIF using active or passive drains. Causes of lithesis were excluded from this study along with cases with dural tears and cases with more than one level of lumbar interbody fusion.
The most significant finding of this study was regarding blood loss. Active drains had a greater propensity for blood loss than passive drains. However, there was no statistical difference between the average VAS score for pain in the lower limbs between active and passive groups post- operatively and there were no cases with worsening or deterioration of their pre-operative neurological status regardless of the type of drain used.
In this study we observed infection in 3.2% (one superficial and one deep) of the total number of surgeries performed, one recorded in the group using an active drain and the other one in the group using a passive drain. No statistical significant difference in the development of infection on comparison between the groups, which represented neither benefit nor harm with the type of suction drain used.
The use of closed suction drainage in posterior spinal surgery has always been a matter of debate and controversy. However, this study revealed that blood loss and DROP in postoperative hemoglobin were more significant with active than passive drains, thus increasing the possibility of blood transfusions with its many complications.