Intraoperative cell salvage involves the collection of blood directly from the operative field. The purpose of this study was to determine if its use reduces the need for postoperative allogenic blood transfusion, assess any adverse events and its effect on duration of postoperative stay in primary hip arthroplasty. We prospectively examined the effect of intraoperative cell salvage on the need for postoperative allogenic blood transfusion. Between February 2009 and August 2010, a total of 77 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty were included in the study, under the care of the senior author (KB). All patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Intraoperative cell salvage was used in 38 patients and not used in 39 patients. We prospectively collected data on patient demographics, ASA grade, preoperative and postoperative haematological features, number of units of packed red cells transfused and the volume of intraoperative reinfused cell salvaged blood was. Total inpatient stay and any postoperative adverse events were recorded. No patients in the cell salvage group required postoperative allogenic blood transfusion compared to three patients (7.7%) in the conventional group. Postoperative decrease in haemoglobin was less in the cell salvage group (2.57 vs. 3.3 g/dL). The mean length of postoperative inpatient stay was shorter in the cell salvage group (5.1 vs. 6.41 days). Three patients in the cell salvage group had adverse events (1 UTI, 1 hyponatraemia, 1 colonic pseudo-obstruction). Three patients in the conventional group experienced adverse events (2 superficial wound infections, 1 DVT). An average of 361mls of cell salvaged blood was reinfused (110–900mls). We have found that the use of intraoperative cell salvage in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty reduces the need for post operative allogenic blood transfusion with no increase in adverse events when compared to conventional measures of blood preserving techniques

In recent years, reduction in the length of stay in patients undergoing UKA has gained considerable interest. This has led to development of ‘fast-track' and even day-case protocols aimed at decreasing length of stay (LOS), enhancing post-operative recovery and decreasing post-operative morbidity. One potential barrier to faster discharge and patient recovery is the need for post-operative haemoglobin checks and allogenic blood transfusion; which has been shown to increase LOS. Allogenic blood transfusion itself is not without risk, including immunological reactions, transfusion associated lung injury, infection and transmission of disease, thus reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion is imperative. Currently there is a knowledge gap regarding post-operative transfusion need and blood loss following UKA. We aimed to investigate blood loss and transfusion rates following UKA. Our primary aim was to evaluate the extent of post-operative transfusion need following UKA and identify which patients are at higher risk of needing transfusion. Following institutional approval, a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) at our level one academic university hospital was conducted. Operative records of all patients undergoing primary UKA were reviewed between March 2016 and March 2019. Patients' pre-operative haemoglobin and haematocrit, BMI, co-morbidities, application of tourniquet, tourniquet time, administration of Tranexamic Acid, need for post-operative blood transfusion, hospital length of stay, complications and re-admission were all recorded. Blood loss was estimated using the post-operative haematocrit. A total number of 155 patients were included. There were 70 females (45%) and 85 males (55%). The mean age was 66±10 years. Median pre-op blood volume was 4700mls (IQR; 4200–5100). Median blood loss was 600 mls (IQR; 400–830). Mean pre-op Haemoglobin was 135±14g/L and mean post-op Haemoglobin was 122±13g/L. No patient had a post-op Haemoglobin under 80g/L (Range 93–154). No patients in our study needed transfusion. A further comparison group of high-blood loss and low-blood loss patients was included in analysis. High-blood loss patients were defined as those losing greater than 20% of their pre-operative blood volume whilst low-blood loss patients were defined as those losing ≤20% of their blood volume. Results of these groups are presented in Table 3. No significance was found between the two groups in patient's demographics and in terms of intra-operative factors including TXA usage (p=0.68) and tourniquet time (p=0.99). There was no difference in terms of post-operative complications (p=1.0), length of stay (p=0.36) or readmission rates (p=0.59). The results of our study indicated that post-operative haemoglobin and haematocrit check proved unnecessary in all of our patients and could have been omitted from post-operative routines. We conclude that routine post UKA check of haemoglobin and haematocrit can be avoided and be saved for special circumstances depending on patient's physiology

Blood management protocols attempt to reduce blood loss by strategies including autologous blood donation, red cell salvage, normovolaemic haemodilution and haemostatic agents such as tranexamic acid (TXA). TXA usage in particular has become increasingly commonplace with numerous studies demonstrating a significant reduction in peri-operative blood loss and proportion of patients requiring transfusion, without increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. Tourniquet usage has now become ubiquitous in TKA operations with reported benefits of improved visualization, shorter operative time and decreased intra-operative bleeding. However, its use is not without considerable complications including wounding dehiscence, increased venous thromboembolism, superficial wound infection and skin blistering. It is therefore imperative that we review tourniquet usage in light of ever evolving blood management strategies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of stopping tourniquet usage in primary TKRs, performed by an experienced surgeon, in light of new blood reduction measures, such as a TXA. A retrospective analysis identified a total of 31 patients who underwent primary TKR without the use of a tourniquet from January 2018 to March 2019. This was compared to an earlier group of patients from the same surgeon undergoing TKR with the use of a tourniquet; dating from July 2016 to November 2017. All surgeries were performed within the same hospital (CXH). Peri-operative factors and outcome measures were collected for analysis. There was no significant difference in post-operative haemoglobin drop (Tourniquet, 23.1 g/L; No Tourniquet, 24.4 g/: p=0.604) and fall in haematocrit (Tourniquet, 0.082; No Tourniquet, 0.087: p=0.604). Allogenic blood transfusion rates were the same in both groups at 12.9% (2 patients) and blood loss was not found to be significantly different (Tourniquet, 1067ml; No tourniquet, 1058mls). No significant difference was found in operative time (Tourniquet, 103 minutes; No Tourniquet, 111.7 minutes: p=0.152) or length of stay (Tourniquet, 5.5 days; No Tourniquet, 5.2 days: p=0.516). Tranexamic acid usage was not found to be significant (p=1.000). ROM of motion and analgesia requirement was significantly better in the no tourniquet group on one post-operative day out of five analysed (p=0.025, p=00.011). No post-operative thromboembolic events were reported in either group. There was no significant difference in readmission rates (p=0.492) or complications (p=0.238). The increase in minor complications and potential increased VTE risk with tourniquet usage must be balanced against an improved visual field and reduced blood loss in TKR patients. Our study found no difference in post-operative blood loss and transfusion rates between tourniquet and no tourniquet groups. With ever evolving and improving blood loss management strategies, including the use of TXA, the application of tourniquet may not be needed. Further prospective RCTs are needed to assess the impact of tourniquet usage in light of this

Objectives

To define Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the Oxford hip score (OHS) and Oxford knee score (OKS) at mid-term follow-up.