LAUSR

STUDY DESIGN Case-control study. OBJECTIVES To compare the outcomes of 2 different criteria (time driven and output driven) for wound drain removal and identify which one is better. METHODS 743 patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion with instrumentation involving 1 or 2 motion segments were enrolled in this study. Based on the different criteria for drain removal, the patients were divided into 2 groups. The drains were discontinued by time driven (postoperative day 2) in group I and output driven (<50 ml per day) in group II. Demographic characteristics, perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS The demographic characteristics in both groups were comparable. The postoperative drain output, total blood loss, postoperative timing of ambulation, and postoperative duration of hospital stay in group I were lower than those in group II (P < 0.001). There was a higher proportion of patients requiring postoperative blood transfusion in group II, but not to a level of statistical significance (P = 0.054). There was no statistical significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) or symptomatic spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS This study reveals that there are more benefits of wound drain removal by time driven than that by output driven for patients undergoing posterior 1-level or 2-level lumbar fusion with instrumentation, including less postoperative drain output, less total blood loss, earlier postoperative timing of ambulation and less postoperative duration of hospital stay without increasing the incidence of postoperative SSI or symptomatic SEH.