Clin Orthop Surg.  2016 Mar;8(1):78-83. 10.4055/cios.2016.8.1.78.

Can We Prevent a Postoperative Spinal Epidural Hematoma by Using Larger Diameter Suction Drains?

• Ahn DK
• Kim JH
• Chang BK
• Lee JI

• KMID: 2363949
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2016.8.1.78

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Epidural hematoma is a rare but serious complication. According to previous studies, it is not prevented by suction drains. This study evaluated the following alternative hypothesis: the larger the diameter of a suction drain, the less the remaining epidural hematoma after spinal surgery.
METHODS
This was a randomized prospective study. Patients who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion were divided into two groups: the large drain (LD, 2.8-mm-diameter tube) and small drain (SD, 1.6-mm-diameter tube) groups according to the diameter of the suction drains. All patients were consecutive and allocated alternately according to the date of operations. Suction drains were removed on day 3 and magnetic resonance imaging was performed on day 7 postoperatively. The size of remaining hematomas was measured by the degree of thecal sac compression in cross section using the following 4-point numeric scale: G1, less than one quarter; G2, between one quarter and half; G3, more than half; and G4, more than subtotal obstruction.
RESULTS
There were 39 patients with LDs and 38 with SDs. They did not differ significantly in terms of sex, number of fusion segments, revision or not, antiplatelet medication, intraoperative injection of tranexamic acid. However, patient age differed significantly between the two groups (LD, 63.3 years and < SD, 68.6 years; p = 0.007). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, platelet number, blood loss, or operation duration. However, platelet function analysis exhibited a significant difference (LD, 164.7 seconds and < SD, 222.3 seconds; p = 0.002). The two blinded readers showed high consistency (Kappa value = 0.740; p = 0.000). The results of reader 1 were as follows: LD and SD had 21 and 21 cases of G1, 9 and 11 cases of G2, 6 and 6 cases of G3, and 3 and 0 cases of G4, respectively. The results of reader 2 were as follows: LD and SD had 22 and 23 cases of G1, 7 and 9 cases of G2, 7 and 6 cases of G3, and 3 and 0 cases of G4, respectively. There was no difference between the two groups (reader 1, p = 0.636; reader 2, p = 0.466).
CONCLUSIONS
The alternative hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, postoperative spinal epidural hematoma would not be prevented by LD.

Keyword

Hematoma; Epidural; Spinal; Postoperative; Larger suction drain

MeSH Terms

Aged
Equipment Design
Female
Hematoma, Epidural, Spinal/epidemiology/*prevention & control
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications/epidemiology/*prevention & control
Prospective Studies
Spine/surgery
Suction/adverse effects/*instrumentation/*statistics & numerical data

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 (A) The large drain: a 2.8-mm-diameter tube with 22 holes of 2.2 mm diameter per 10 cm length. The total area of holes per 10 cm was 89.7 mm2. (B) The small drain: a 1.6-mm-diameter tube with 32 holes of 1.1 mm diameter per 10 cm length. The total area of holes per 10 cm was 32.4 mm2. The large drain has 2.8-fold greater hole area and 1.75-fold greater tube diameter than the small drain. Therefore, the drainage capacity of the large drain is 1.754 : 9.38-fold greater than that of a small drain according to the Hagen-Poiseuille law.

• 

  Fig. 2 Grading system of epidural hematoma as determined by thecal sac compression on T2-weighted axial images. (A) G1: less than one quarter. (B) G2: between one quarter and half. (C) G3: more than half. (D) G4: more than subtotal obstruction.

Reference

1. Awad JN, Kebaish KM, Donigan J, Cohen DB, Kostuik JP. Analysis of the risk factors for the development of postoperative spinal epidural haematoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(9):1248–1252.

2. Kou J, Fischgrund J, Biddinger A, Herkowitz H. Risk factors for spinal epidural hematoma after spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(15):1670–1673.

3. Lawton MT, Porter RW, Heiserman JE, Jacobowitz R, Sonntag VK, Dickman CA. Surgical management of spinal epidural hematoma: relationship between surgical timing and neurological outcome. J Neurosurg. 1995; 83(1):1–7.

4. Kebaish KM, Awad JN. Spinal epidural hematoma causing acute cauda equina syndrome. Neurosurg Focus. 2004; 16(6):e1.

5. Leonardi MA, Zanetti M, Saupe N, Min K. Early postoperative MRI in detecting hematoma and dural compression after lumbar spinal decompression: prospective study of asymptomatic patients in comparison to patients requiring surgical revision. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19(12):2216–2222.

6. Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Modic MT, Bohlman H, Delamater R, Wilber G. Lumbar spine: postoperative assessment with surface-coil MR imaging. Radiology. 1987; 164(3):851–860.

7. Dina TS, Boden SD, Davis DO. Lumbar spine after surgery for herniated disk: imaging findings in the early postoperative period. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164(3):665–671.

8. Montaldi S, Fankhauser H, Schnyder P, de Tribolet N. Computed tomography of the postoperative intervertebral disc and lumbar spinal canal: investigation of twenty-five patients after successful operation for lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurgery. 1988; 22(6 Pt 1):1014–1022.

9. Djukic S, Vahlensieck M, Resendes M, Genant HK. The lumbar spine: postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Bildgebung. 1992; 59(3):136–146.

10. Kotilainen E, Alanen A, Erkintalo M, Helenius H, Valtonen S. Postoperative hematomas after successful lumbar microdiscectomy or percutaneous nucleotomy: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Surg Neurol. 1994; 41(2):98–105.

11. Ikuta K, Tono O, Tanaka T, et al. Evaluation of postoperative spinal epidural hematoma after microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006; 5(5):404–409.

12. Amiri AR, Fouyas IP, Cro S, Casey AT. Postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (SEH): incidence, risk factors, onset, and management. Spine J. 2013; 13(2):134–140.

13. Cabana F, Pointillart V, Vital J, Senegas J. Postoperative compressive spinal epidural hematomas: 15 cases and a review of the literature. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2000; 86(4):335–345.

14. Yi S, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Kim SH, Shin HC. Postoperative spinal epidural hematoma: risk factor and clinical outcome. Yonsei Med J. 2006; 47(3):326–332.

15. Sokolowski MJ, Garvey TA, Perl J 2nd, et al. Prospective study of postoperative lumbar epidural hematoma: incidence and risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(1):108–113.

16. Brown MD, Brookfield KF. A randomized study of closed wound suction drainage for extensive lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(10):1066–1068.

17. Chimenti P, Molinari R. Post-operative spinal epidural hematoma causing American Spinal Injury Association B spinal cord injury in patients with suction wound drains. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013; 36(3):213–219.

18. Parker MJ, Livingstone V, Clifton R, McKee A. Closed suction surgical wound drainage after orthopaedic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (3):CD001825.

19. Walid MS, Abbara M, Tolaymat A, et al. The role of drains in lumbar spine fusion. World Neurosurg. 2012; 77(3-4):564–568.

20. Kanayama M, Oha F, Togawa D, Shigenobu K, Hashimoto T. Is closed-suction drainage necessary for single-level lumbar decompression?: review of 560 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(10):2690–2694.

21. Uribe J, Moza K, Jimenez O, Green B, Levi AD. Delayed postoperative spinal epidural hematomas. Spine J. 2003; 3(2):125–129.

22. Scuderi GJ, Brusovanik GV, Fitzhenry LN, Vaccaro AR. Is wound drainage necessary after lumbar spinal fusion surgery? Med Sci Monit. 2005; 11(2):CR64–CR66.

23. Awwad EE, Smith KR Jr. MRI of marked dural sac compression by surgicel in the immediately postoperative period after uncomplicated lumbar laminectomy. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999; 23(6):969–975.

24. Mirzai H, Eminoglu M, Orguc S. Are drains useful for lumbar disc surgery? A prospective, randomized clinical study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006; 19(3):171–177.