[1]高阳 王勇* 刘阳 杨枭雄 吴坤.颈后路单开门椎管扩大成形术后即刻保持常压引流与负压引流效果的比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2024,01(8):553-557.
　Gao Yang,Wang Yong,Liu Yang,et al.Comparison of Effects of Immediate Normal Pressure Drainage and Negative Pressure Drainage After Posterior Cervical Expansive Opendoor Laminoplasty[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2024,01(8):553-557.
点击复制

颈后路单开门椎管扩大成形术后即刻保持常压引流与负压引流效果的比较()
分享到：

《中国微创外科杂志》[ISSN:1009-6604/CN:11-4526/R]

卷:
01
期数:
2024年8期
页码:
553-557
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2024-08-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Effects of Immediate Normal Pressure Drainage and Negative Pressure Drainage After Posterior Cervical Expansive Opendoor Laminoplasty
作者:
高阳 王勇* 刘阳 杨枭雄 吴坤
(北京大学第三医院骨科，北京100191)
Author(s):
Gao Yang;  Wang Yong;  Liu Yang;  et al.
Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
关键词:
颈后路手术; 单开门椎管扩大成形术; 常压引流; 负压引流; 血肿
Keywords:
Posterior cervical surgery; Expansive opendoor laminoplasty; Normal pressure drainage; Negative pressure drainage; Hematoma
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨颈后路单开门椎管扩大成形(expansive opendoor laminoplasty，EOL)术后即刻保持常压引流的临床效果。方法回顾性分析 2023 年1~6月我院94例多节段脊髓型颈椎病行颈后路EOL，按入院时间顺序分为常压引流组(n=43)和负压引流组(n=51)，常压组病例时间为2023年1~3月，负压组为2023年4~6月。比较2组术中出血量、术后24 h引流量、术后总引流量、术后引流管留置时间、术后发热、切口感染、颈部切口血肿、手术前后日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedics Association，JOA)评分改善率、住院时间、住院费用、术后血红蛋白下降值等。结果常压引流组术后24 h引流量中位数45(15~150)ml，显著少于负压引流组中位数170(70~400)ml(Z=-7.934，P=0.000)；常压引流组术后总引流量中位数45(15~285)ml，显著少于负压引流组中位数315(165~730)ml(Z=-7.924，P=0.000)；常压引流组术后引流管留置时间(27.1±13.9)h，明显短于负压引流组(82.2±20.6)h(t=-14.933，P=0.000)；常压引流组住院时间(3.5±1.1)d，明显短于负压引流组(5.6±0.8)d(t=-10.322，P=0.000)；常压引流组术后血红蛋白下降(13.9±3.1)g/L，显著低于负压引流组(16.5±7.2)g/L(t=-2.165，P=0033)；常压引流组住院费用(3.00±0.30)万元，显著少于负压引流组(3.48±0.29)万元(t=-7.924，P=0.000)。2组术中出血量、术后发热、切口感染发生率无显著性差异(P>0.05)。2组均无深部切口感染或血肿发生。2组术后3个月JOA 评分改善率无显著性差异(t=0.861，P=0.391)。结论颈后路EOL术后常压引流可以减少术后引流量，缩短引流管留置时间和住院时间，降低患者住院费用，且并不增加术后血肿、发热及切口感染等并发症，临床效果显著。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effect of normal pressure drainage immediately after posterior cervical expansive opendoor laminoplasty (EOL).MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 94 cases of posterior cervical EOL in our hospital from January 2023 to June 2023. The patients were divided into normal pressure drainage group (n=43) and negative pressure drainage group (n=51) according to the order of admission time. The time range of cases in the normal pressure group was from January to March 2023, while in the negative pressure group was from April to June 2023. The 24 h postoperative drainage volume, total postoperative drainage volume, drainage tube indwelling time, postoperative fever, incision infection, neck wound hematoma, Japanese Orthopaedics Association (JOA) score improvement rate before and after surgery, length of hospital stay, hospital cost and postoperative hemoglobin decline were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe 24 h postoperative drainage volume of the normal pressure drainage group was significantly lower than that of the negative pressure drainage group ［45 (15-150) ml vs. 170 (70-400) ml, Z=-7.934, P=0.000］. The total drainage volume in the normal pressure drainage group was significantly lower than that in the negative pressure drainage group ［45 (15-285) ml vs. 315 (165-730) ml, Z=-7.924, P=0.000］. The drainage tube indwelling time was (27.1±13.9) h in the normal pressure drainage group and (82.2±20.6) h in the negative pressure drainage group, with statistically significant difference between the two groups (t=-14.933, P=0.000). The length of hospital stay was (3.5±1.1) d in the normal pressure drainage group and (5.6±0.8) d in the negative pressure drainage group, with statistical significance between the two groups (t=-10.322, P=0.000). The postoperative hemoglobin decline was (13.9±31) g/L in the normal pressure drainage group and (16.5±7.2) g/L in the negative pressure drainage group, with statistically significant difference between the two groups (t=-2.165, P=0.033). The hospitalization cost was (3.00±0.30) ten thousand yuan in the normal pressure drainage group and (3.48±0.29) ten thousand yuan in the negative pressure drainage group, with statistically significant difference between the two groups (t=-7.924, P=0.000). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative fever and incision infection between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement rate of JOA score between the two groups during 3 months of followups (t=0861, P=0.391).ConclusionAfter posterior cervical EOL, normal pressure drainage reduces the postoperative drainage flow, indwelling time of drainage tube, hospital stay, and hospitalization cost, and does not increase postoperative hematoma, fever and wound infection and other complications, the clinical effect being significant.

参考文献/References:

[1]孙新立,周非非,孙 宇,等.颈椎前路微创手术后再次翻修手术的原因分析.中国微创外科杂志,2021,21(3):226-230.
[2]You JY, Zheng Y, Chen M, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a metaanalysis. Zhongguo Gu Shang,2017,30(1):71-78.
[3]Duetzmann S, Cole T, Ratliff JK. Cervical laminoplasty developments and trends, 2003-2013: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine,2015,23(1):24-34.
[4]Eckardstein KL, Dohmes JE, Rohde V. Use of closed suction devices and other drains in spinal surgery: results of an online, Germanywide questionnaire. Eur Spine J,2016,25(3):708-715.
[5]Holt BT, Parks NL, Engh GA, et al. Comparison of closedsuction drainage and no drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics,1997,20(12):1121-1124.
[6]Aono H, Ohwada T, Hosono N, et al. Incidence of postoperative symptomatic epidural hematoma in spinal decompression surgery. J Neurosurg Spine,2011,15(2):202-205.
[7]Zhan B， Fang S， Lv X, et al. Effect of drain placement in shortlevel spinal surgery on postoperative wound infection: A metaanalysis.Int Wound J,2024,21(3):e14508.
[8]Aggad M,Terrier LM, Nidal Salah C, et al. Are there still any benefits to drainage for anterior cervical arthrodesis/arthroplasty by cervicotomy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2024,Feb.
[9]李彦,刘晓光,刘忠军,等.颈后路单开门椎管扩大成形术后常压引流与负压引流的临床效果比较.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2018,28(11):969-974.
[10]Walid MS, Abbara M, Tolaymat A, et al. The role of drains in lumbar spine fusion. World Neurosurg,2012,77(3-4):564-568.
[11]Ho C, Sucato DJ, Richards BS.Risk factors for the development of delayed infections following posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2007,32(20):2272-2277.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
*通讯作者，Email：runneryong@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2024-11-13