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
We hypothesised there was no clinical value in
using an autologous blood transfusion (ABT) drain in either primary total
hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) in terms of limiting allogeneic
blood transfusions when a modern restrictive blood management regime
was followed. A total of 575 patients (65.2% men), with a mean age
of 68.9 years (36 to 94) were randomised in this three-arm study
to no drainage (group A), or to wound drainage with an ABT drain
for either six hours (group B) or 24 hours (group C). The primary
outcome was the number of patients receiving allogeneic blood transfusion.
Secondary outcomes were post-operative haemoglobin (Hb) levels,
length of hospital stay and adverse events. This study identified only 41 transfused patients, with no significant
difference in distribution between the three groups (p = 0.857).
The mean pre-operative haemoglobin (Hb) value in the transfused
group was 12.8 g/dL (9.8 to 15.5) Cite this article:
