Transfusion Reduction in Orthopedic Surgery

Erve, Ruud H.G.P. van; Wiekenkamp, Alexander C.

doi:10.5772/33920

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of post operative blood transfusion was significantly higher in the drain group (p = 0.009) and this agrees with other studies [17,18]. This outcome is particularly important because blood transfusion has documented risks including acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (1 : 500,000), Hepatitis B (1 : 63,000) and Hepatitis C (1 : 103,000), increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure and malignancy [19,20]; and increases treatment costs. Lowering the cost of treatment is an ongoing challenge in many health systems and is particularly important in resource challenged health systems [21].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Prophylactic Wound Drainage in Orthopaedics: A Comparative Evaluation of Closed Suction Drainage versus No-Drainage in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital

Ikpeme¹,

Ngim²,

Ilori³

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Surgical wound drainage is practiced routinely by many orthopaedic surgeons despite studies that challenge the practice. Among proponents, the advantages of drainage include prevention of haematoma and/or seroma formation which potentially reduces the chances for infection, prevention of wound swelling, prevention of compartment syndrome and improvement of the local wound environment. Opponents argue that prophylactic wound drainage confers no significant advantages, increases the risk of infection and the need for blood transfusion with the attendant risks of this therapy. Aim: To ascertain if prophylactic drainage of clean orthopaedic wounds confer any significant advantages by evaluating wound and systemic factors in two treatment groups. Patients and Methods: A prospective analysis of 62 patients was undergoing clean orthopaedic procedures. The patients were randomly assigned to a “No drain” (study) group and a “drain” (control) group. Each group had 31 patients. Surgeons were blinded to the randomization process and the evaluation of clinical outcomes. The parameters assessed included pain, superficial wound infection, the need for post-operative transfusion, wound leakage, dressing changes and the surgery-discharge interval. Data was analysed using SPSS statistics version 20 (IBM Corp., New York). Results: There were no significant differences in the demographic data. Femoral fractures were the commonest indication for surgery (43.55%), and plate and screw osteosynthesis was the commonest procedure (48.4% in the drain group and 67.7% in the no-drain group). There was a significantly higher need for post-operative transfusion in the drain group (22.6% against 0%) as well as a significantly prolonged capillary refill time (2.39 + 0.56 secs versus 2.03 + 0.41 secs). Although not statistically significant, there were four cases (12.8%) of superficial wound infection in the drain group and 1 case (3.2%) in the no-drain group. Conclusion