ArticleJB & JS open access
Intraoperative Cell Salvage for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A 24-Year Study of Transfusion Requirements.
Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision hip arthroplasty is associated with significant blood loss and a subsequent need for blood transfusion. Intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) is a method of recovering a patient's blood for autologous transfusion. This potentially reduces the need for allogenic blood transfusion (ABT), thus avoiding associated risk and expense. This study assessed the impact of the use of ICS on the need for ABT in revision hip arthroplasty in a tertiary referral center over a 24-year period. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of revision hip arthroplasties performed between November 1996 and May 2020 was undertaken. ABT and ICS use for each procedure was collated and analyzed. Results: Two thousand six hundred thirty-nine revision hip operations were included, of which 755 (28.6%) used ICS. Significantly less patients in the ICS group required ABT, 218 patients (28.9%) compared with 923 (49.0%) in the control group, p < 0.001, χ Discussion: The use of ICS in revision hip surgery significantly reduces the risk of requiring postoperative ABT and reduces the volume of allogenic blood required. This reduces the known risks associated with ABT, with associated cost saving benefits of reduced transfusion rates and reduced use of the precious resource of allogenic blood. We advise the use of ICS in all patients undergoing revision hip surgery and, in particular, those patients with higher bleeding risks outlined in the study.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.