[Comparison of Orth-Evac and Solcotrans Plus devices for the autotransfusion of blood drained after total knee joint arthroplasty]

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety and availability of transfused donor blood have prompted research into a range of techniques to minimise allogeneic transfusion requirements. Cell salvage (CS) describes the recovery of blood from the surgical field, either during or after surgery, for reinfusion back to the patient.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CS in minimising perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and on other clinical outcomes in adults undergoing elective or non-urgent surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews from 2009 (date of previous search) to 19 January 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs assessing the use of CS compared to no CS in adults (participants aged 18 or over, or using the study's definition of adult) undergoing elective (non-urgent) surgery only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 106 RCTs, incorporating data from 14,528 participants, reported in studies conducted in 24 countries. Results were published between 1978 and 2021. We analysed all data according to a single comparison: CS versus no CS. We separated analyses by type of surgery. The certainty of the evidence varied from very low certainty to high certainty. Reasons for downgrading the certainty included imprecision (small sample sizes below the optimal information size required to detect a difference, and wide confidence intervals), inconsistency (high statistical heterogeneity), and risk of bias (high risk from domains including sequence generation, blinding, and baseline imbalances). Aggregate analysis (all surgeries combined: primary outcome only) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.72; 82 RCTs, 12,520 participants). Cancer: 2 RCTs (79 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for mortality, blood loss, infection, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Cardiovascular (vascular): 6 RCTs (384 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for most outcomes. No data were reported for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Cardiovascular (no bypass): 6 RCTs (372 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 3 RCTs, 169 participants). Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for volume transfused, blood loss, mortality, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospital length of stay (LOS). There were no analysable data reported for thrombosis, DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and MACE. Cardiovascular (with bypass): 29 RCTs (2936 participants) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS, and suggests there may be no difference in risk of infection and hospital LOS. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a reduction in volume transfused because of CS, or if there is any difference for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, wound complication, thrombosis, DVT, PE, MACE, and MI, and probably no difference in risk of stroke. Obstetrics: 1 RCT (1356 participants) High-certainty evidence shows there is no difference between groups for mean volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mean difference (MD) -0.02 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 1 RCT, 1349 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for risk of allogeneic transfusion. There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Orthopaedic (hip only): 17 RCTs (2055 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, or if there is any difference between groups for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), thrombosis, DVT, PE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for MACE and MI. Orthopaedic (knee only): 26 RCTs (2568 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, and whether there is a difference for blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, PJI, DVT, PE, MI, MACE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for mortality and thrombosis. Orthopaedic (spine only): 6 RCTs (404 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; 3 RCTs, 194 participants). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for volume transfused, blood loss, infection, wound complication, and PE. There were no analysable data reported for mortality, re-operation for bleeding, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MACE, MI, stroke, and hospital LOS. Orthopaedic (mixed): 14 RCTs (4374 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS, or if there is any difference between groups for volume transfused, mortality, blood loss, infection, wound complication, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MI, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for re-operation for bleeding, MACE, and stroke.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In some types of elective surgery, cell salvage may reduce the need for and volume of allogeneic transfusion, alongside evidence of no difference in adverse events, when compared to no cell salvage. Further research is required to establish why other surgeries show no benefit from CS, through further analysis of the current evidence. More large RCTs in under-reported specialities are needed to expand the evidence base for exploring the impact of CS.

Autotransfusion with Predeposit-Haemodilution and Perioperative Blood Salvage: 20 Years of Experience

Background

Through a prospective study, we evaluated the efficacy of an integrated autotransfusion regimen comprised of predeposit-hemodiluition and intra and post-operative blood salvage in major orthopaedic surgery.

Methods

We examined the records of 2303 consecutive patients (1524 females and 779 males, mean age 62.7, standard deviation 11 years (range 16–90 yrs), pre-operative haemoglobin (Hb) concentration 13.5 (SD 1.4) (range 6.7–19.3) g/dl undergong total hip arthroplasty (THA 1582 patients), THA after the removal of internal fixation devices (RFD+THA, 25 patients), total knee arthroplasty (TKA, 347 patients), revision surgery of the hip (HR, cup+stem revision, 248 patients; cup revision 64 patients; stem revision 23 patients) and total knee revision (TKR 14 patients). We estimated that the number of predonations (MSBOS - maximum surgery blood order schedule) was 2 units for THA, TKA and TKR, and 3 units for partial or total hip revision and for total hip arthroplasty with fixation removal.

Results

It was possible to obtain the MSBOS in 2070 patients (89.8%). Homologous red blood cell (HRBC) transfusion were carried out in 184 patients (8%). We found that the need to use HRBC was significantly associated with failure to meet the number of MSBOS, female sex, lower pre-operative Hb concentration, use of calcium heparin for antithrombosis prophylaxis, more extensive surgery, a higher ASA rating and co-existing diseases such as coronary artery disease.

Conclusions

Cooperation among anaesthesis, transfusionists and surgeons in the application of an integrated autotransfusion regimen enabled us to treat 92% of our patients with only autotransfusion.

Cell Salvage in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Cell salvage is used to reduce allogeneic red blood-cell (RBC) transfusions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of cell salvage to reduce transfusions in THA and TKA separately, and to examine whether recent trials change the conclusions from previous meta-analyses.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE through January 2013 for randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of cell salvage in THA and TKA. Trial results were extracted using standardized forms and pooled using a random-effects model. Methodological quality of the trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk-of-bias assessment.

RESULTS

Forty-three trials (5631 patients) were included. Overall, cell salvage reduced the exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion in THA (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.85) and TKA (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.68). However, trials published in 2010 to 2012, with a lower risk of bias, showed no significant effect of cell salvage in THA (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.02) and TKA (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.31), suggesting that the treatment policy regarding transfusion may have changed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Looking at all trials, cell salvage still significantly reduced the RBC exposure rate and the volume of RBCs transfused in both THA and TKA. However, in trials published more recently (2010 to 2012), cell salvage reduced neither the exposure rate nor the volume of RBCs transfused in THA and TKA, most likely explained by changes in blood transfusion management.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified studies by searching CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), the internet (to August 2009) and bibliographies of published articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage (autotransfusion) or to a control group who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and the risk of bias assessed. Relative risks (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 75 trials were included. Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 38% (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 21% (95% CI 15% to 26%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.57) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.68 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (WMD -0.68; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. The use of cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status potentially biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified studies by searching CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), the Internet (to August 2009) and bibliographies of published articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage (autotransfusion), or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and the risk of bias assessed. Relative risks (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 75 trials were included. Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 38% (RR=0.62: 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 21% (95% CI 15% to 26%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.57) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.68 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (WMD=-0.68; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. The use of cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status potentially biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Clinically informative measures of the effect of drugs or other interventions

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Several comparative measures (ratios, differences, or the number needed to treat) are used to express the effect of a drug or another intervention. These measures can vary in the way they are affected by the background risk measured from the reference group.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This paper reviews the formulation, interpretation and limitations of measures of effect. We describe a little-known parameter, the attained effect or clinical result ratio, a positive reformulation of the relative risk difference, and suggest how available parameters can be best used to summarize results of studies of the effect of drugs. AIMS Measures to compare two drugs are often affected by the background risk in the reference group; a ceiling effect results when the background risk is small. We review measures of the effect of drugs, including a special formulation of the relative risk difference, the attained effect or clinical result ratio, that addresses background risk and ceiling effect.

METHODS

Existing measures are the risk and odds ratios, the absolute and relative risk differences, and the number needed to treat. The attained effect is defined as the observed gain in success (the difference of proportion of success between the two interventions), divided by the maximum attainable gain, the maximum proportion of success one can expect. We illustrate the relationship between these measures with published results of two meta-analyses.

RESULTS

In studies of the effectiveness of cell salvage, the baseline risk ranged between 8 and 95%. This variability affected the risk difference and number needed to treat, while the attained effect, with a ceiling residual risk of 2%, showed that the gain in success was half the maximum attainable gain. In studies of the effectiveness of therapy in patients infected by the human immunodeficiency virus, where the baseline risk was less variable, and there was no ceiling effect, the maximum attained effect indicated that the gain could be much smaller.

CONCLUSION

The attained effect, interpreted as the proportion of effectiveness that remains to gain for future interventions, can usefully complete the number needed to treat as a clinically informative effect measure.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the websites of international health technology assessment agencies. The reference lists in identified trials and review articles were also searched, and study authors were contacted to identify additional studies. The searches were updated in January 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel group trials in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage, or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. The main outcomes measures were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other outcomes measured were re-operation for bleeding, blood loss, post-operative complications (thrombosis, infection, non-fatal myocardial infarction, renal failure), mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 39% (relative risk [RR] = 0.61: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.71). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 23% (95% CI 16% to 30%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.42 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.54) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.87) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.67 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean difference was -0.64; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.45). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective surgery. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

The effectiveness of reinfusion after total knee replacement. A prospective randomised controlled study

The purpose of our study was to determine the effectiveness of a postoperative autologous blood reinfusion system as an alternative to homologous, banked blood transfusions in total knee arthroplasty. We carried out a prospective randomised controlled study on 60 patients having unilateral total knee replacements. In all these patients, the same surgical team applied the same surgical technique, and all patients followed the same rehabilitation program. In 30 of these patients (group A), a reinfusion system of unwashed salvaged blood was applied, and they were supplemented postoperatively with banked blood transfusions when required. A control group of 30 patients (group B), in whom standard suction drains were used, received one unit of homologous banked blood transfusion intraoperatively and additional blood transfusions postoperatively when required. The administration of banked blood transfusion was determined by the haemoglobin value (<9 mg/dl) and/or clinical signs (blood pressure, pulse, etc.). The values of haemoglobin, haematocrit and platelets were recorded preoperatively and the first, fifth and 15th postoperative days, respectively. Five patients of group A required nine units of homologous blood (0.3 units/patient) postoperatively. Ten patients of group B required an additional 15 banked blood units postoperatively (in total 45 banked blood units for group B; 1.5 units/patient). In the study group, the total homologous blood requirements were reduced by 80%, while the postoperative blood requirements were reduced by 50%. There was no significant difference in the postoperative haematocrit and haemoglobin values between the two groups. The cost of the blood management in the study group was reduced by 36%. The use of an autologous blood reinfusion system reduces highly effectively the demands of homologous banked blood transfusion in total knee arthroplasty.

Comparison of perioperative blood salvage and postoperative reinfusion of drained blood during surgical correction of craniosynostosis in infants

BACKGROUND

The surgical correction of craniosynostosis may be associated with extensive blood loss and transfusion. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the perioperative use of the continuous autotransfusion system (CATS group) and of the postoperative use of the CBCII ConstaVac(R) system (CV group) to reduce homologous transfusion in infants during repair of craniosynostosis.

METHODS

Two groups of consecutive infants, weighing <10 kg, and scheduled for the surgical correction of craniosynostosis, were compared retrospectively according to the blood salvaging system used: CATS group and CV group. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the total volume of homologous blood transfused.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the CV (n = 69) and the CATS (n = 135) groups with regard to physical, preoperative and postoperative data, except for the type of craniosysnostosis with more scaphocephaly in the CV group (P = 0.03). No significant difference in blood loss and homologous transfusion was observed between the two groups during the perioperative period. Two subgroups of patients were also compared: a subgroup including patients operated on with a linear craniectomy for scaphocephaly, and a subgroup including all other patients. There was also no significant difference in blood loss and homologous transfusion between the CV and the CATS groups for these two subgroups of patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the postoperative use of the CBCII ConstaVac(R) system is as efficient as the perioperative use of the CATS(R) system for reducing homologous blood transfusion during repair of craniosynostosis in infants weighing <10 kg.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Articles were identified by: computer searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents (to July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2002) and websites of international health technology assessment agencies. References in the identified trials and review articles were searched and authors contacted to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel group trials in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage, or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed using criteria proposed by Schulz et al. (Schulz 1995) and Jadad et al. (Jadad 1996). Main outcomes measured were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other outcomes measured were: re-operation for bleeding, blood loss, post-operative complications (thrombosis, infection, non-fatal myocardial infarction, renal failure), mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 40% (relative risk [RR] = 0.60: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 23% (95%CI = 16% to 30%). In orthopaedic procedures the relative risk (RR) of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.42 (95%CI = 0.32 to 0.54) compared to 0.78 (95%CI = 0.68 to 0.88) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.64 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.64: 95%CI = -0.86 to -0.46). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective surgery. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patient's treatment status biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators

Concern about risks of allogeneic transfusion has led to an interest in methods for decreasing perioperative transfusion. To determine whether cell salvage reduces patient exposure to allogeneic blood, we performed meta-analyses of randomized trials, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell salvage in cardiac or orthopedic elective surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received at least one perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion. Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analyses. Cell salvage devices that do not wash salvaged blood were marginally effective in cardiac surgery patients when used postoperatively (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.92). Devices that wash or do not wash salvaged blood considerably decreased the proportion of orthopedic surgery patients who received allogeneic transfusion (RR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.30-0.51 and RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.26-0.46, respectively). No studies of cell savers that wash salvaged blood during cardiac surgery were included. Cell salvage did not appear to increase the frequency of adverse events. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the risk of patients' exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively. Postoperative cell salvage in cardiac surgery, with devices that do not wash the salvaged blood, is only marginally effective.

IMPLICATIONS

This meta-analysis of all published randomized trials provides the best current estimate of the effectiveness of cell salvage and is useful in guiding clinical practice. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively, but postoperative cell salvage is only marginally effective in cardiac surgery.