Autologous blood transfusion drainage versus closed suction drainage following TKA .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2017;5(6):2 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Nov 2;17(1):452Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis comparing autologous blood transfusion drainage and closed suction drainage following total knee arthroplasty. Results demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of allogeneic transfusion among groups treated with ABTD compared to CSD. No significant differences between drainage types were found in analyses of postoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, and complication rates.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
4/4
Introduction
3/4
Accessing Data
3/4
Analysing Data
4/4
Results
2/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Postoperative blood management following total knee arthroplasty procedures is an important consideration for orthopaedic surgeons. Traditional methods of management include the use of closed suction drainage (CSD) to prevent the development of hematoma postoperatively, however, many have expressed concerns that the use of closed suction drains can increase blood loss compared to no drainage and can increase the need for allogeneic transfusion. To address this, autologous blood transfusion drainage (ABTD) has been developed. Despite several randomized controlled trials that have compared results between ABTD and CSD, inconsistent findings have been obtained. A meta-analysis was needed to better assess the comparative efficacy between ABTD and CSD in blood management following total knee arthroplasty.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
How does the efficacy and safety compare between autologous blood transfusion drainage and closed suction drainage in total knee arthroplasty?
- The incidence of allogeneic blood transfusion was significantly lower among ABTD groups (100/606) compared to CSD groups (242/597) (12 studies; OR 0.25 [95%CI 0.13-0.47]; p=0<0.0001, I-squared 77%). Assessment of funnel plot suggested the presence of publication bias.
- The mean number of transfused units was also significantly lower with ABTD compared to CSD (5 studies; MD -0.68/patient [95%CI -0.98, -0.39]; p<0.00001, I-squared 74%).
- No significant difference between ABTD and CSD groups was observed in the incidence of wound complications (3 studies; OR 0.98 [95%CI 0.40-2.38]; p=0.97, I-squared 0%) or the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (4/257 vs. 6/252; 4 studies; OR 0.69 [95%CI 0.21-2.24]; p=0.54, I-squared 0%).
- No significant difference was observed in the incidence of febrile complications between ABTD groups (50/244) and CSD groups (66/257) (6 studies; OR 0.78 [95%CI 0.25-2.40]; p=0.67, I-squared 56%).
- No significant difference between ABTD and CSD groups was observed in blood drainage volume (7 studies; MD -2.91mL [95%CI -43.50, 37.68]; p=0.89, I-squared 34%) or hemoglobin level between 5-8 days postoperatively (4 studies; MD 0.21g/dL [95%CI -0.07, 0.48]; p=0.14, I-squared 48%).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
In total knee arthroplasty, the use of autologous blood transfusion drainage led to a significantly lower rate of allogeneic blood transfusion when compared to closed suction drainage, though the presence publication bias could not be rejected. Otherwise, no significant differences between drainage types were observed in the incidences of wound complications, deep vein thrombosis, or febrile complications, nor postoperative blood loss volume.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
The results of this study suggest that autologous blood transfusion drainage systems may reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion when compared to closed suction drainage after total knee arthroplasty, while providing similar results regarding postoperative blood loss and complication rate. The result of this study, however, is limited by the suggestion of possible publication bias based on visual inspection of funnel plots. Additionally, many of the included studies featured small sample sizes; future trials should aim to enroll greater sample sizes to improve estimates of effect.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
