Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Comparison between autologous blood transfusion drainage and closed-suction drainage/no drainage in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

  • Kun-hao Hong1,
  • Jian-ke Pan2,
  • Wei-yi Yang2,
  • Ming-hui Luo2,
  • Shu-chai Xu2 and
  • Jun Liu2Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201617:142

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0993-z

Received: 17 May 2015

Accepted: 22 March 2016

Published: 1 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Autologous blood transfusion (ABT) drainage system is a new unwashed salvaged blood retransfusion system for total knee replacement (TKA). However, whether to use ABT drainage, closed-suction (CS) drainage or no drainage in TKA surgery remains controversial. This is the first meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficiency, safety and potential advantages regarding the use of ABT drains compared with closed-suction/no drainage.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched in March 2015. Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and pooled for statistical analysis. The primary outcome evaluated was homologous blood transfusion rate. The secondary outcomes were post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5, length of hospital stay and wound infections after TKA surgery.

Results

The pooled data included 1,721 patients and showed that patients in the ABT drainage group might benefit from lower blood transfusion rates (16.59 % and 37.47 %, OR: 0.28 [0.14, 0.55]; 13.05 % and 16.91 %, OR: 0.73 [0.47,1.13], respectively). Autologous blood transfusion drainage and closed-suction drainage/no drainage have similar clinical efficacy and safety with regard to post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5, length of hospital stay and wound infections.

Conclusions

Autologous blood transfusion drainage offers a safe and efficient alternative to CS/no drainage with a lower blood transfusion rate. Future large-volume high-quality RCTs with extensive follow-up will affirm and update this system review.

Keywords

Knee arthroplasty Knee replacement Autologous blood transfusion Closed-suction Drainage Drains

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a highly successful standard procedure for patients who suffer serious knee arthralgia, instability and deformity. It is used after non-surgical treatments are exhausted, especially in advanced knee osteoarthritis [1, 2]. However, TKA can result in significant blood loss, reduction in haemoglobin (Hb) and other clinical risks [3, 4]. Reports of blood transfusion rates of 39 %–50 % have been published [57]. Autologous blood transfusion (ABT) drainage system is a new unwashed salvaged blood retransfusion system for primary TKA. However, whether to use ABT drainage, closed-suction (CS) drainage or no drainage in TKA surgery is still controversial. Some studies have found that ABT significantly reduced the need for homologous blood [8, 9], but other research has questioned the benefits of this method [10, 11] or demonstrated that post-TKA ABT had a limited effect on blood conservation [12, 13]. While gaining worldwide acceptance [14] for effectively decreasing hematoma formation [15, 16], conventional suction drains have been theoretically thought to decrease postoperative pain, swelling and incidence of infection [17]. However, a closed suction drainage system inevitably increases bleeding because the tamponade effect of a closed undrained wound is eliminated [14].

Until now, no systematic reviews incorporating meta-analyses (SRMA) have found sufficient evidence to recommend ABT drainage or no drainage in primary TKA. This is the first SRMA to systematically compare the clinical results of ABT drainage with closed-suction (CS)/no drainage in patients undergoing TKA. Previous SRMAs comparing ABT drainage versus CS drainage and CS drainage versus no drainage were published as the standard in evidence-based medicine with conflicting results [6, 18, 19]. Quinn et al. [19] showed that ABT drainage was superior to CS drainage for reducing blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.25 [0.13, 0.47]; P < 0.0001), and length of hospital stay (WMD: −0.25 [−0.48, −0.01]; P = 0.04). However, data extraction errors occurred in two included studies [20, 21] when extracting the number of patients requiring homologous blood transfusion for the meta-analysis. Another flaw is that in meta-analysis extracted data without intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, treatment effectiveness may be exaggerated. The previous meta-analysis also did not evaluate other outcome measures like wound complication and post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5. The aim of this SRMA was to pool extracted data from available published RCTs to provide a directly substantiated judgment regarding the use of ABT drainage following TKA surgery.

Methods

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (Additional file 1) [22], we made a prospective protocol of objectives, literature-search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcome measurements and methods of statistical analysis before the research began.

Data sources and search strategies

The following databases were searched in March 2015 without restriction to regions and publication types: Pubmed (1950–March 2015), Embase (1974–March 2015) and Cochrane Library (March 2015 Issue 3) (Additional file 2). The MeSH terms and their combinations searched in [Title/Abstract] was as follows: “total knee replacement” OR “total knee arthroplasty” OR “total knee prosthesis” OR “unicompartmental” OR “unicondylar” OR “arthroplasty, replacement, knee” [MeSH term] AND (“autologous blood transfusion” OR “autotransfusion” OR “blood transfusion, autologous” [MeSH Terms] OR “intraoperative blood salvage” OR “intraoperative blood” OR “postoperative blood salvage” OR “intraoperative blood cell salvage” OR “operative blood salvage” [MeSH Terms]). The reference lists of related reviews and original articles identified for any relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult humans were reviewed. The search also included the Controlled Trials Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com). Only articles originally written in English or translated into English were considered. When multiple reports describing the same situation were published, the most recent or complete report was used.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Two independent researchers (Pan and Yang) identified studies that met the defined inclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by consensus (Hong and Liu). Inclusion criteria were: (1) the comparison was between ABT drainage and CS/no drainage post TKA; (2) at least one of the quantitative outcomes we determined to evaluate was reported; (3) study design was a RCT; and (4) full text was published in English. Non-original research (e.g. review article, editorials, letter to the editor), case reports, animal experimental studies and duplicated publications were excluded.

Data extraction and analysis

The data from eligible studies were extracted by two researchers (Hong and Pan) independently to minimize errors and reduce potential biases. In cases of disagreement, a consensus was reached by the adjudicating senior authors (Yang and Liu). The extracted data was input into a computerized spreadsheet, including sample size, study design, patient age, gender, preoperative/postoperative Hb levels, number of patients transfused with homologous blood, length of hospital stay and wound infection. The primary outcome was homologous blood transfusion rate. The secondary outcomes were post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5, length of hospital stay and wound infection.

Quality assessment and data synthesis

The RCTs were graded according to criteria of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in Oxford, UK [23]. The quality of the RCTs; methodology was evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool [24].

The statistical analysis was conducted with Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5.3.5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Our analyses were based on ITT or modified ITT data. Odds risk (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95 % CIs for continuous data. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by using the chi-square test and I2 statistic. A random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity was detected between studies without clinical diversity (P < 0.10; I2 > 50 %). Otherwise, a fixed-effect model was performed [24]. In cases with I2 values greater than 50 % for outcome measures, sensitivity analyses were conducted for heterogeneity. When overall results and conclusions are not affected by the different decisions that could be made during the review process, the results of the review can be regarded with a higher degree of certainty [24]. Funnel plots were used to identify potential publication bias.

Results

Fifteen studies [10, 11, 20, 21, 2535], all full-text articles in English including 1,721 cases (840 ABT drainage, 544 closed-suction drainage and 337 no drainage), were selected for synthesis analysis (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of studies identified, included and excluded ᅟ

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Study

LOEa

Patients, no.

Surgical method

Agea

M:F ratio

Pre-op Hba

  

A

B

C

 

A

B

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

Amin A 2008 [11]

1b

92

86

SU-TKA

70.3

70.4

43:49

39:47

13.2 (1.2)

13.4(1.3)

Zacharopoulos A 2007 [25]

2b

30

30

SU-TKA

69.2

70.2

6:24

7:23

NA

NA

Abuzakuk T 2007 [10]

1b

52

52

SU-TKA

NA

NA

21:31

22:30

13.6(1.5)

13.5(1.2)

Kirkos JM 2006 [27]

2b

78

77

SU-TKA

69.1(5.5)

68.9(5.1)

18:60

10:67

13.0(1.4)

13.1(1.4)

Dramis A 2006 [26]

2b

25

24

SU-TKA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Cheng SC 2005 [28]

1b

26

34

SU-TKA

72

69.6

6:20

12:22

12.4

12.8

Thomas D 2001 [29]

1b

115

116

SU-TKA

NA

NA

44:71

55:61

NA

NA

Adalberth G 1998 [20]

1b

30

30

30

SU-TKA

71(5.4)

72(8)

71(1.3)

NA

NA

NA

13.8(1.1)

14.3(1.3)

14.2(2.6)

Newman J 1997 [30]

2b

35

35

SU-TKA

NA

NA

NA

NA

13.4 ± 1.2

13.2 ± 1.4

Heddle NM 1992 [21]

1b

39

40

SU-TKA

69.3(6.9)

71(9)

25:14

26:14

NA

NA

Majkowski RS 1991 [31]

1b

20

20

SU-TKA

71.3

70.3

6:14

6:14

13.2

12.7

Horstmann W 2014 [33]

1b

59

56

SU-TKA

68(9)

69(8)

17:24

 

39:17

14(1.4)

14(1.4)

Dutton T 2012 [34]

2b

23

25

SU-TKA

68.7

70.5

10:13

 

10:15

NA

NA

Thomassen BJ 2014 [32]

1b

88

87

SU-TKA

68.9

69.5

NA

NA

NA

14.2

14.2

Ritter MA 1994 [35]

2b

128

123

SU-TKA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

13.0

13.1

LOE Level of evidence, SU-TKA selective unilateral total knee replacement, B-TKA bilateral total knee replacement

A autologous blood transfusion drainage, B conventional suction drain, C No drainage, NA data not available;. — = without this group ; aMean or Mean(SD)

Characteristics of included studies

The demographic characteristics of the 15 studies are presented in Table 1.

The majority of the RCTs reviewed were moderate-quality studies. Among the included studies, there were nine RCTs [10, 11, 20, 21, 28, 29, 3133] with a 1b level of evidence and six RCTs [2527, 30, 34, 35] with a 2b level of evidence. Figures 2 and 3 showed the methodological quality of RCTs assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. True randomization was used in only nine RCTs [10, 11, 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35], while five RCTs [25, 26, 29, 31, 32] did not mention the method of randomization and one RCT [27] used quasi-randomization. Five studies [20, 28, 3234] mentioned the method of allocation concealment. One study [28] provided information about blinding for participants. One study [33] mentioned the blinding of outcome assessments. Fourteen studies [10, 11, 20, 21, 2529, 3135] reported the complete analysis. One study [30] was at high risk on selective reporting.
Fig. 2

Risk of bias assessment

Fig. 3

Risk of bias summary

Primary outcomes

Homologous blood transfusion rate

Fourteen studies [10, 11, 20, 21, 25, 26, 2835] compared the effect of ABT drainage versus closed-suction drainage/no drainage according to changes in the number of patients requiring homologous blood transfusion. The meta–analysis of ABT versus CS drainage groups [10, 11, 20, 21, 25, 26, 2831] showed substantial heterogeneity in the consistency of results (Chi2 = 34.04, P < 0.0001; I2 = 74 %). Sensitivity analyses were conducted with different decisions of excluding a study. When excluding the study [30] without clinical diversity detected, the heterogeneity was reduced (I2 = 59 %, P = 0.01). The result of sensitivity analysis was similar to the total analysis. Therefore, the random effects model showed a significant beneficial effect of ABT compared to CS drainage in reducing the blood transfusion rate (16.59 % and 37.47 %, OR: 0.28 [0.14, 0.55]; Z = 3.67, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 4). The meta-analysis of ABT versus no drainage groups [20, 3235] showed no heterogeneity in the consistency of results (Chi2 = 1.22, P = 0.87; I2 = 0 %) and no significant difference in reducing the blood transfusion rate (13.05 % and 16.91 %, OR: 0.73 [0.47, 1.13], Z = 1.41, P = 0.16) (Fig. 4). However, a 3.86 % reduction in blood transfusion rate when comparing ABT drainage directly to no drainage should be given attention.
Fig. 4

Forest plot and meta-analysis of homologous blood transfusion rate ᅟ

Secondary outcomes

Post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5

Four studies [10, 11, 20, 33] reported post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5. Among them, one study [10] only reported haemoglobin on the fifth day post-operation, while the other study reported haemoglobin only on the third day post-operation. Pooling the data of the 342 patients in the ABT versus CS drainage groups showed no significant difference (WMD: 0.25 [−0.06, 0.56] ; Z = 1.56, P = 1.2) (Fig. 5). No significant heterogeneity in this group was detected (P = 0.42, I2 = 0 %). The meta-analysis of ABT versus no drainage group showed substantial heterogeneity in the consistency of results (Chi2 = 2.50, P = 0.11; I2 = 60 %). For two studies, sensitivity analyses were not necessary with no clinical diversity identified. The random effects model of meta-analysis in the group showed no significant beneficial effect of ABT drainage compared with no drainage in post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5 (WMD: 0.41 [−0.26, 1.09] ; Z = 1.20, P = 0.23).
Fig. 5

Forest plot and meta-analysis of post-operative haemoglobin days 3–5 ᅟ

Length of hospital stay

Pooling the data from four studies [10, 20, 30, 33] that assessed length of hospital stay in 339 patients showed no significant difference in the ABT versus CS drainage and ABT versus no drainage groups (WMD: −0.962 [−2.09, 0.17]; Z = 1.67, P = 0.01; WMD: 0.07 [−0.67, 0.81], Z = 0.19, P = 0.85, respectively). The comparison of ABT versus CS drainage group showed substantial heterogeneity in the consistency of trial results (Chi2 = 4.14, P = 0.13; I2 = 52 %). Owing to marked heterogeneity within the evaluated length of hospital stay, sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding one study [10] with lower quality. Then, no significant heterogeneity was detected (P = 0.32, I2 = 0 %) and there was also no significant difference between the ABT and CS drainage groups in length of hospital stay (WMD: −0.52 [−1.30, 0.25]; Z = 1.33, P = 0.18). However, no significant heterogeneity was detected in the ABT drainage versus no drainage groups (Chi2 = 0.01, P = 0.90, I2 = 0 %). (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6

Forest plot and meta-analysis of length of hospital stay ᅟ

Wound infection

Four studies [11, 29, 31, 35 ] reported the complication of wound infection. The result showed no heterogeneity in the consistency of results in ABT versus CS drainage groups (Chi2 = 0.80, P = 0.66; I2 = 0 %). Pooling the data of the 444 patients in the ABT versus CS drainage group and the 275 patients in the ABT versus no drainage group showed no significant difference between ABT drainage and closed-suction/no drainage (OR: −0.98 [0.40, 2.38] ; Z = 0.04, P = 0.97; OR: 1.01 [0.06, 16.27] , Z = 0.01, P = 1.00, respectively) (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7

Forest plot and meta-analysis of wound infection ᅟ

Publication bias

Figure 8 shows a funnel plot of the included studies that reported homologous blood transfusion rates. All studies lie inside the 95 % CIs except two studies, with an asymmetric distribution around the vertical indicating presence of obvious publication bias. This obvious publication bias is for the beneficial effect of lowering blood transfusion rate.
Fig. 8

Funnel plot of homologous blood transfusion rate ᅟ

Discussion

This SRMA of 15 studies including 1,721 patients comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of ABT drainage and closed-suction/no drainage showed significant statistical differences in homologous blood transfusion rates and similar clinical efficacy and safety in post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5, length of hospital stay and wound infection in post-TKA patients.

With recent techniques, ABT drainage post TKA manifests the attractive concept of retransfusing collected drainage blood and continues to be a controversial issue in TKA surgery. Some studies have published considerable doubt with respect to its advantages [16, 36]. Despite the advantageous results, including reduced homologous blood transfusion rates shown in some studies [29, 37, 38], some authors have suggested insufficient efficiency for ABT [10, 39]. In spite of the paucity of consistent evidence, for many years the majority of orthopaedic procedures were followed by the use of ABT drainage post TKA to reduce the blood transfusion rate. However, the present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate a significant beneficial effect of ABT drainage in reducing the blood transfusion rate. The result of this meta-analysis showed no significant difference in post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5. As those patients who received allogenic blood were not excluded from this analysis and there was a higher rate of allogenic blood transfusion in the closed suction drainage group compared with the ABT drainage group, it cannot be ascertained whether this is owing to a failure in ABT drainage to produce a beneficial effect on post-operative haemoglobin or to the positive nature of allogenic blood on haemoglobin levels. With the application of any new medical device, the safety of the patients is always of paramount importance. Acting as a channel for the introduction of infection, drainage may increase infection risk by impairing host resistance and allowing pathogens access to a sterile field [16, 17, 40]. The demands on nursing care and physiotherapy are increased to accommodate the presence of drainage. In orthopaedic surgery, wound infection is a devastating complication. However, the pooled data of postoperative outcomes indicated that the ABT drainage equipment was safe and effective for TKA. There was no significant difference in wound complication and length of hospital stay. This finding indicates that ABTD is as safe and efficient as CS/no drainage.

Some possible limitations of this meta-analysis and future research directions should be noted. The primary limitation is that the selected RCTs in this meta-analysis were moderate-quality studies with small sample sizes. With fewer included studies in the outcome analysis, the statistical heterogeneity assessments, including I2 text, were able to make false negative errors. Future systematic reviews should evaluate the indications from literature from sufficient, larger multi-centre clinical studies. In addition, this meta-analysis limited the included articles to those published in English. There might be selection bias in language. Finally, no long-term outcome measures were assessed, which is most pertinent to patients [41]. Therefore, other outcomes like range of movement, deep joint infection and component loosening, which are manifested after many years, should be considered.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to systematically compare the results of ABT drainage with closed-suction drainage/no drainage in patients undergoing TKA. The pooled results demonstrated that ABT drainage was more efficacious than CS drainage in clinically reducing blood transfusion rate. This meta-analysis also indicated that ABT drainage and closed-suction drainage/no drainage had similar clinical efficacy and safety with regard to post-operative haemoglobin on days 3–5, length of hospital stay and wound infection. Nevertheless, in spite of our rigorous methodology, the inherent limitations of eligible studies prevented us from reaching definitive conclusions. Based on the above clinical equipoise and potential benefit, future large-volume high-quality RCTs with long-term measures are awaited to affirm and update this system review.

Notes

Abbreviations

TKA: 

total knee arthroplasty

ABT: 

autologous blood transfusion

CS: 

closed-suction

SRMA: 

systematic reviews incorporating meta-analyses

RCT: 

randomized controlled trial

ITT: 

intent-to-treat

OR: 

odds risk

WMD: 

weighted mean differences

CI: 

confidence interval

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81473698, No. 81273781), TCM Standardization Projects of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China (No. SATCM-2015-BZ115, SATCM-2015-BZ173), Project of Guangdong Provincial Department of Finance (No. [2014] 157), Science and Technology Research Project of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (No. YK2013B2N19).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Guangdong Second Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital
(2)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Second School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine

References

  1. Visser AW, de Mutsert R, Bloem JL, Reijnierse M, Kazato H, le Cessie S, den Heijer M, Rosendaal FR, Kloppenburg M. Knee osteoarthritis and fat free mass interact in their impact on health-related quality of life in men: The Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study. Arthrit Care Res. 2015;67(7):981–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkan BM, Fidan F, Tosun A, Ardicoglu O. Quality of life and self-reported disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2014;24(1):166–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM, Ritter MA. Predictors of transfusion risk in elective knee surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;357:50–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Torres-Claramunt R, Hinarejos P, Pérez-Prieto D, Gil-González S, Pelfort X, Leal J, Puig L. Sealing of the intramedullar femoral canal in a TKA does not reduce postoperative blood loss: A randomized prospective study. Knee. 2014;21(4):853–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bidolegui F, Arce G, Lugones A, Pereira S, Vindver G. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss and transfusion in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Open Orthop J. 2014;8:250–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Markar SR, Jones GG, Karthikesalingam A, Segaren N, Patel RV. Transfusion drains versus suction drains in total knee replacement: meta-analysis. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(9):1766–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Bierbaum BE, Callaghan JJ, Galante JO, Rubash HE, Tooms RE, Welch RB. An analysis of blood management in patients having a total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(1):2–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Tsumara N, Yoshiya S, Chin T, Shiba R, Kohso K, Doita M. A prospective comparison of clamping the drain or post-operative salvage of blood in reducing blood loss after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(1):49–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Steinberg EL, Ben-Galim P, Yaniv Y, Dekel S, Menahem A. Comparative analysis of the benefits of autotransfusion of blood by a shed blood collector after total knee replacement. Arch Orthop Traum Su. 2004;124(2):114–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Abuzakuk T, Senthil Kumar V, Shenava Y, Bulstrode C, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW. Autotransfusion drains in total knee replacement. Are they alternatives to homologous transfusion? Int Orthop. 2007;31(2):235–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Amin A, Watson A, Mangwani J, Nawabi DH, Ahluwalia R, Loeffler M. A prospective randomised controlled trial of autologous retransfusion in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(4):451–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Strümper D, Weber E, Gielen Wijffels S, Van Drumpt R, Bulstra S, Slappendel R, Durieux M, Marcus M. Clinical efficacy of postoperative autologous transfusion of filtered shed blood in hip and knee arthroplasty. Transfusion. 2004;44(11):1567–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. So-Osman C, Nelissen RGHH, Eikenboom HCJ, Brand A. Efficacy, safety and user-friendliness of two devices for postoperative autologous shed red blood cell re-infusion in elective orthopaedic surgery patients: a randomized pilot study. Transfusion Med. 2006;16(5):321–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Tai T, Chang C, Yang C. The role of drainage after total knee arthroplasty. INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2012Google Scholar
  15. Drinkwater CJ, Neil MJ. Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):185–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt BT, Parks NL, Engh GA, Lawrence JM. Comparison of closed-suction drainage and no drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 1997;20(12):1121–4. 1124-1125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim YH, Cho SH, Kim RS. Drainage versus nondrainage in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;347:188–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Haien Z, Yong J, Baoan M, Mingjun G, Qingyu F. Post-operative auto-transfusion in total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plos One. 2013;8(1):e55073.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Quinn M, Bowe A, Galvin R, Dawson P, O’Byrne J. The use of postoperative suction drainage in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop. 2015;39(4):653–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Adalberth G, Bystrom S, Kolstad K, Mallmin H, Milbrink J. Postoperative drainage of knee arthroplasty is not necessary: a randomized study of 90 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69(5):475–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Heddle NM, Brox WT, Klama LN, Dickson LL, Levine MN. A randomized trial on the efficacy of an autologous blood drainage and transfusion device in patients undergoing elective knee arthroplasty. Transfusion. 1992;32(8):742–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, et al. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Web site http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed April 22,2015.
  24. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from. http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
  25. Zacharopoulos A, Apostolopoulos A, Kyriakidis A. The effectiveness of reinfusion after total knee replacement. A prospective randomised controlled study. Int Orthop. 2007;31(3):303–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dramis A, Plewes J. Autologous blood transfusion after primary unilateral total knee replacement surgery. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;72(1):15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirkos JM, Krystallis CT, Konstantinidis PA, Papavasiliou KA, Kyrkos MJ, Ikonomidis LG. Postoperative re-perfusion of drained blood in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: is it effective and cost-efficient? Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;72(1):18–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cheng SC, Hung TS, Tse PY. Investigation of the use of drained blood reinfusion after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2005;13(2):120–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas D, Wareham K, Cohen D, Hutchings H. Autologous blood transfusion in total knee replacement surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(5):669–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman JH, Bowers M, Murphy J. The clinical advantages of autologous transfusion. A randomized, controlled study after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(4):630–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Majkowski RS, Currie IC, Newman JH. Postoperative collection and reinfusion of autologous blood in total knee arthroplasty. Ann Roy Coll Surg. 1991;73(6):381–4.Google Scholar
  32. Thomassen BJ, den Hollander PH, Kaptijn HH, Nelissen RG, Pilot P. Autologous wound drains have no effect on allogeneic blood transfusions in primary total hip and knee replacement: a three-arm randomised trial. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(6):765–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Horstmann W, Kuipers B, Ohanis D, Slappendel R, Kollen B, Verheyen C. Autologous re-transfusion drain compared with no drain in total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial. Blood Transfus. 2014;12 Suppl 1:s176–81.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Dutton T, De-Souza R, Parsons N, Costa ML. The timing of tourniquet release and ‘retransfusion’ drains in total knee arthroplasty: A stratified randomised pilot investigation. Knee. 2012;19(3):190–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Closed wound drainage in total hip or total knee replacement. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(1):35–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Esler CNA, Blakeway C, Fiddian NJ. The use of a closed-suction drain in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85(2):215–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Muñoz M, Ariza D, Garcerán MJ, Gómez A, Campos A. Benefits of postoperative shed blood reinfusion in patients undergoing unilateral total knee replacement. Arch Orthop Traum Su. 2005;125(6):385–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Carless P, Moxey A, O’ Connell D, Henry D. Autologous transfusion techniques: a systematic review of their efficacy. Transfus Med. 2004;14(2):123–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hansen E, Hansen MP. Reasons against the retransfusion of unwashed wound blood. Transfusion. 2004;44(12 Suppl):45S–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zamora-Navas P, Collado-Torres F, de la Torre-Solis F. Closed suction drainage after knee arthroplasty. A prospective study of the effectiveness of the operation and of bacterial contamination. Acta Orthop Belg. 1999;65(1):44–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Greidanus NV, Peterson RC, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Quality of life outcomes in revision versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(4):615–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Hong et al. 2016

Advertisement