ARTHROPLASTY
Comparison between autologous blood transfusion drainage and closed-suction drainage/no drainage in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2016;4(22):10 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 1;17:142Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis and systematic reviewing comparing the efficacy and safety of autologous blood transfusion systems to both closed suction drainage and no drain use. Results on allogenic blood transfusion rate demonstrated a significantly lower rate with the use of autologous blood transfusion systems compared to closed suction drainage, but not when compared to no drain use. Hemoglobin level, the length of stay, and wound infection rate were not significantly different between either the use of autologous blood transfusion systems and closed suction drainage, or autologous blood transfusion systems and no drainage.
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?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
4/4
Analysing Data
4/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
One of the most debated topics in the perioperative management of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty is blood conservation. More specifically, there is considerable debate about whether autologous blood transfusion drains - a relatively new, expensive technology - offer any significant difference in blood management than standard closed-suction drains or no drain at all. Despite the previous randomized controlled trials conducted on the topic, there is currently a lack of a comprehensive review to base clinical decisions upon.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
In total knee arthroplasty, is there any significant difference in efficacy and safety between autologous blood transfusion and either closed-suction drainage or no drainage?
重要な知見は？
- There was a significantly lower incidence of allogenic blood transfusions among autologous blood transfusion systems groups compared to closed suction drainage groups (10 studies; OR 0.28 [95%CI 0.14-0.55]; p=0.0002); the difference between autologous blood transfusion systems and no drainage groups was not significant (5 studies; OR 0.73 [95%CI 0.47-1.13]; p=0.16).
- In analyses of hemoglobin levels between 3-5 days postoperatively, no significant differences were observed between autologous blood transfusion systems versus closed suction drainage (3 studies; MD 0.25 [95%CI -0.06, 0.56]; p=0.12), or autologous blood transfusion systems versus no drainage (2 studies; MD 0.41 [95%CI -0.26, 1.09]; p=0.23).
- No significant difference was observed in the length of hospital stay in analyses of autologous blood transfusion systems versus closed suction drainage (3 studies; MD -0.96 [95%CI -2.09, 0.17]; p=0.10), or autologous blood transfusion systems versus no drainage (2 studies; MD 0.07 [95%CI -0.67, 0.81]; p=0.85).
- No significant difference was observed in the incidence of wound infection in analyses of autologous blood transfusion systems versus closed suction drainage (3 studies; OR 0.98 [95%CI 0.40-2.38]; p=0.97), or autologous blood transfusion systems versus no drainage (1 study; OR 1.01 [95%CI 0.06-16.27]; p=1.00).
最も覚えておくべきことは？
In total knee arthroplasty, autologous blood transfusion systems demonstrated a significantly lower requirement of allogenic transfusion when compared to groups managed with standard closed suction drainage, however, there was no significant difference when compared management without drainage. Postoperative hemoglobin levels, length of hospital stay, and the incidence of wound infection did not significantly differ when compared between autologous blood transfusion systems and closed suction drainage, or autologous blood transfusion systems and no drainage.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
The results of this study suggest that there may be an advantage to using autotransfusion systems over closed suction drains when considering allogenic transfusion rate, though similar efficacy and safety between these two options was observed in all other outcomes studied. Additionally, no significant difference in any outcome measure was observed for autotransfusion compared to no drain use. Therefore, the question becomes whether the autotransfusion systems should be considered for routine use in the absence of a significant advantage over simply not using a drain, given the added expense of using autotransfusion systems.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
