Effective utilisation of blood products is fundamental. The introduction of Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedules (MSBOS) for operations provides guidance for effective cross-matching. A retrospective analysis of blood ordering practices was undertaken to establish an evidence-based MSBOS for revision THR and TKR. The impact of the use of intraoperative cell-salvage devices was also assessed.

Methods: The patient database was searched for cases of revision THR and TKR undertaken over 58 months. These records were then cross-referenced with the transfusion database. The cross-match to transfusion ratios (CTR) and transfusion indexes (TI) were calculated using this data.

The gold standard for the CTR is 2:1 or less. The TI establishes the likelihood of blood being transfused for a certain procedure. If the TI is less than 0.5, then cross-matching blood is considered unnecessary.

Results: For revisions of non-infected THR (n=269), the CTR=2.24 and TI=1.67. In infected cases (n=69), CTR=2.16 and TI=1.68.

In revisions of non-infected TKR (n=95), the CTR=4.33 and TI=0.48. In infected cases (n=54) the CTR=2.16 and TI=1.35.

There was considerable change in the practice of ordering cross-matched blood following the introduction of intraoperative cell-salvage devices (Revision THR: CTR=1.93, TI=0.84; Revision TKR: CTR=1.20, TI=0.16)

Discussion: The analysis confirmed that more blood was requested than was actually required. Overall the results suggest that cross-matching is still necessary for both the non-infected and infected revision THR but the number of units requested could be reduced to 2 units. In revision TKR, transfusions were more likely in infected cases and, a ‘group & save’ may be sufficient for non-infected cases.

The introduction of this MSBOS in conjunction with intraoperative cell-salvage, could promote blood conservation and financial savings.

Introduction: Effective utilisation of blood products is fundamental. The introduction of Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedules (MSBOS) for operations provides guidance for effective cross-matching. A retrospective analysis of blood ordering practices was undertaken to establish an evidence-based MSBOS for revision THR and TKR. The impact of the use of intraoperative cell-salvage devices was also assessed.

Methods: The patient database was searched for cases of revision THR and TKR undertaken over 58months. These records were then cross-referenced with the transfusion database. The cross-match to transfusion ratios (CTR) and transfusion indexes (TI) were calculated using this data.

The gold standard for the CTR is 2:1 or less. Procedures with ratios greater than 3:1 should substitute for a ‘group and save’. The TI establishes the likelihood of blood being transfused for a certain procedure, i.e., the number of units transfused divided by the number of patients having the procedure. If the TI is less than 0.5, then cross-matching blood is considered unnecessary.

Results: For revisions of non-infected THR (n=269), the CTR=2.24 and TI=1.67. In infected cases (n=69), CTR=2.16 and TI=1.68.

In revisions of non-infected TKR (n=95), the CTR=4.33 and TI=0.48. In infected cases (n=54) the CTR=2.16 and TI=1.35.

There was considerable change in the practice of ordering cross-matched blood following the introduction of intraoperative cell-salvage devices (Revision THR: CTR=1.93, TI=0.84; Revision TKR: CTR=1.20, TI=0.16)

Discussion: The analysis confirmed that more blood was requested than was actually required. Overall the results suggest that cross-matching is still necessary for both the non-infected and infected revision THR but the number of units requested could be reduced to 2units. In revision TKR, transfusions were more likely in infected cases and, a ‘group & save’ may be sufficient for non-infected cases.

The introduction of this MSBOS in conjunction with intraoperative cell-salvage, could promote blood conservation and financial savings.