The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups.Aims
Methods
Clinical, haematological or economic benefits of post-operative blood salvage with autologous blood re-transfusion have yet to be clearly demonstrated for primary total hip replacement. We performed a prospective randomised study to analyse differences in postoperative haemoglobin levels and homologous blood requirements in two groups of patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. A series of 158 patients was studied. In one group two vacuum drains were used and in the other the ABTrans autologous retransfusion system. A total of 58 patients (76%) in the re-transfusion group received autologous blood. There was no significant difference in the mean post-operative haemoglobin levels in the two groups. There were, however, significantly fewer patients with post-operative haemoglobin values less than 9.0 g/dl and significantly fewer patients who required transfusion of homologous blood in the re-transfusion group. There was also a small overall cost saving in this group.
