No Effect of a Bipolar Sealer on Total Blood Loss or Blood Transfusion in Nonseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty-A Prospective Study With Matched Retrospective Controls

Christian Skovgaard Nielsen, Kirill Gromov, Øivind Jans, Anders Troelsen, Henrik Husted

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postoperative anemia is frequent after revision of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with reported transfusion rates up to 83%. Despite increased efforts of reducing blood loss and enhancing fast recovery within the fast-track setup, a considerable transfusion rate is still evident. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the effect of a bipolar sealer on blood loss and transfusion in revision TKA.

METHODS: In this single-center prospective cohort study with retrospective controls, 51 patients were enrolled in a fast-track setup for revision TKA without the use of a tourniquet. Twenty-five prospectively enrolled patients received treatment with both a bipolar sealer and electrocautery, whereas 26 patients had received treatment with a conventional electrocautery only in the retrospective group.

RESULTS: No significant differences were found neither for calculated blood loss, with 1397 (standard deviation, ± 452) mL in the bipolar sealer group vs 1452 (SD, ± 530) mL in the control group (P = .66), nor for blood transfusion rates of 53% and 46% (P = .89), respectively. Four controls were readmitted within 90 days follow-up.

CONCLUSION: The use of a bipolar sealer in a TKA revision setting without the use of a tourniquet did not reduce blood loss or blood transfusion rates.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Arthroplasty
Volume32
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)177-182
Number of pages6
ISSN0883-5403
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2017

Keywords

  • Journal Article

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'No Effect of a Bipolar Sealer on Total Blood Loss or Blood Transfusion in Nonseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty-A Prospective Study With Matched Retrospective Controls'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this