Loading…

The role of intraoperative cell salvage system on blood management in major orthopedic surgeries: a cost–benefit analysis

Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency and cost of cell salvage systems with allogeneic blood transfusions in patients who had major elective orthopedic surgeries. Materials and methods Consecutive 108 patients who had intraoperative cell saver (CS) performed routinely cons...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology 2018-07, Vol.28 (5), p.991-997
Main Authors: Duramaz, Altuğ, Bilgili, Mustafa Gökhan, Bayram, Berhan, Ziroğlu, Nezih, Edipoğlu, Erdem, Öneş, Halil Nadir, Kural, Cemal, Avkan, Mustafa Cevdet
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency and cost of cell salvage systems with allogeneic blood transfusions in patients who had major elective orthopedic surgeries. Materials and methods Consecutive 108 patients who had intraoperative cell saver (CS) performed routinely constitute the study group. In control group, consecutive 112 patients who were operated without intraoperative CS were investigated. Hemoglobin (Hb) level less than 8 mg/dL was regarded as the absolute transfusion indication. The patients were evaluated for age, gender, body mass index, operation period, mean intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hemovac drainage volume; preoperative, postoperative first day and discharge Hb levels, allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) volume, hospitalization and cost parameters. Results The mean intraoperative EBL was 507 mL in the study group and 576 mL in control group. The mean ABT was 300 mL in the study group and 715 mL in control group. In the study group, intraoperative EBL, ABT usage and hospitalization period were significantly lower compared with the control group ( p  = 0.009, p  = 0.000 and p  = 0.000; p  
ISSN:1633-8065
1432-1068
DOI:10.1007/s00590-017-2098-2