Comparison between autologous blood transfusion drainage and no drainage/closed-suction drainage in primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis
- 571 Downloads
Primary aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare blood loss, transfusion rate and postoperative hemoglobin levels at 24–48 h after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) between autologous blood transfusion (ABT) drainage and no drainage/closed-suction drainage and to obtain a powerful conclusion which way of drainage had the best clinical efficacy. Secondary aim was to compare the postoperative complication rates during the first year to indentify which way of drainage was safest.
We searched the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and identified 12 RCTs (including a total of 1,574 patients) for the meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Two researchers extracted relevant data including study characteristics, blood loss, transfusion rate, hemoglobin levels, hospital stay and complications. After data extraction, we compared results using fixed-effects or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies.
Autologous blood transfusion drainage had less total blood loss and lower superficial infection rate than no drainage/closed-suction drainage. While there were no statistical differences in postoperative pain, hematoma, hemoglobin levels, hospital stay and other complications between ABT drainage and no drainage/closed-suction drainage.
Autologous blood transfusion drainage and no drainage/closed-suction drainage have similar clinical efficacy and safety in primary THA with regard to clinical outcomes and complication rates.
KeywordsDrainage Closed-suction drainage ABT drainage Total hip arthroplasty
We would like to thank Ms Jing Zhu for her help in this study.
Conflict of interest
Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of their immediate family, has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.