ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical effectiveness of continuous lumbar drainage for CSF leakage.
MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data from January 1994 to January 2014 for randomized or non-randomized controlled trials on the comparison between lumbar drainage and conventional treatment in the effectiveness of CSF leakage treatment. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 software.
ResultsSeven non-randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving 465 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared with conventional treatment, lumbar drainage was better in effectiveness (RR=3.78, 95%CI 1.91 to 7.50, P=0.000 1), CNS infection rates (RR=0.48, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.95, P=0.04), and hospital stay (MD=-6.66, 95%CI-10.09 to-3.23, P=0.000 1). However, no significant difference was found in the incidence of headache caused by hypotensive cranial pressure (RR=1.32, 95%CI 0.65 to 2.69, P=0.45).
ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that continuous lumbar drainage is superior to conventional treatment in total effectiveness rates, prevention of CNS infection and in reducing hospital stay, which is an effective treatment intervention of CSF leakage. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusion still needs to be verified by carrying out more high-quality studies.
