SynthesisThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2026
Efficacy and Outcomes of Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose (ORC) in Total Joint Arthroplasty (TJA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Novel hemostatic agents, such as oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) have grown in popularity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of ORC for intraoperative and postoperative blood loss in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Methods: A search was conducted across seven databases. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility for inclusion criteria. Full texts were screened and included if they met eligibility criteria. Demographics and results of the studies were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate outcomes. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. One case report study did report a hypersensitivity reaction, however, the remaining studies showed no additional complications from the use of ORC. Five studies reported equivalent rates of blood transfusion, with one study finding that ORC led to lower rates of blood transfusions. Nine studies were included for meta-analysis. Total blood loss (Cohen's d: -0.42, CI: -0.66-0.19, p<0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (Cohen's d: -0.33, CI: -0.51-0.14, p<0.001) were significantly lower in the ORC cohort compared to using no ORC. The ORC cohort also had significantly lower hemoglobin drop on postoperative day 1, however, publication bias was present in association with this finding. There was no significant difference between the ORC cohort and the no ORC cohort for postoperative day 7 hemoglobin (Cohen's d: 1.13, CI: -0.15- 2.42, p=0.08), postoperative day 1 C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (Cohen's d: 0.09, CI: -0.10- 0.29, p=0.36), and postoperative day 7 CRP (Cohen's d: 0.04, CI: -0.50- 0.58, p=0.88).. Conclusion: ORC may help to reduce total blood loss and intraoperative blood loss in TJA, however, it does not appear to have sustained effects over the following week, nor does it appear to lower transfusion rates with the current available evidence. ORC has been shown to be safe, with CRP levels remaining constant postoperatively, and only one case report showing a self-limited hypersensitivity reaction (local rash). ORC may be a useful adjunct to help reduce blood loss for TJA, however, it is not currently clear if its usage leads to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. Level of Evidence: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42488312PMC13389274What 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.