北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2018, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (4): 651-656. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2018.04.014

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

综合止血措施下自体血回输装置对全膝关节置换术失血控制的有效性分析

李杨1*,李邦国2*,赵然1,田华1△,张克1   

  1. (1. 北京大学第三医院骨科, 北京100191;2. 山东省聊城市第二人民医院, 山东聊城252600)
  • 出版日期:2018-08-18 发布日期:2018-08-18
  • 通讯作者: 田华 E-mail:tianhua@bjmu.edu.cn

Effect of autologous blood transfusion device on preventing blood loss in primary total knee arthroplasty using comprehensive hemostatic methods

LI Yang1*, LI Bang-guo2*, ZHAO Ran1, TIAN Hua1△, ZHANG Ke1   

  1. (1. Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China; 2. Department of Orthopedics, the People’s Second Hospital of Liaocheng, Liaocheng 252600, Shandong, China)
  • Online:2018-08-18 Published:2018-08-18
  • Contact: TIAN Hua E-mail:tianhua@bjmu.edu.cn

摘要: 目的:分析在围手术期综合性止血措施下,初次全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty, TKA)使用自体血回输(autologous blood transfusion, ABT)装置引流和非负压引流球引流对于术后失血和输血控制的有效性。方法:回顾性收集2014年6月至2015年6月在北京大学第三医院诊断为重度骨性关节炎,并经同一手术医师完成的单侧、初次TKA患者共131例。按照临床中是否在术后使用ABT装置分为两组,其中ABT组于术后应用ABT装置进行引流和自体血回输,对照组于术后应用非负压引流球进行引流。比较两组患者术后的引流量、血红蛋白下降值、总失血量、隐性失血量及输血率的差异。结果:ABT组术后引流量显著高于对照组[515 mL (80~1 610 mL) vs. 260 mL (40~670 mL),P<0.001],ABT组术后自体血回输量的中位数为245 mL (60~1 070 mL)。两组患者在术后1 d血红蛋白下降值(P=0.340)、术后3 d血红蛋白下降值(P=0.524)、术后3 d的总失血量(P=0.101)和隐性失血量(P=0.062)上差异均无统计学意义。131例患者中共9例接受了异体输血(ABT组5/64,7.8%;对照组4/67,6.0%), 两组患者的输血率差异无统计学意义(P=0.943)。结论:在围手术期综合性止血措施的常规应用下,ABT装置对于控制单侧、初次TKA患者术后失血的效果并不明显,也未能有效降低异体血输血率,然而却加大了术后引流量,增加了患者的住院费用,因此,在单侧、初次TKA术后并无必要常规应用ABT装置。

关键词: 关节成形术, 置换, 膝, 输血, 自体, 失血, 手术

Abstract: Objective: To analyze the conventional application of using comprehensive hemostatic methods during the perioperative period, and the effect of autologous blood transfusion (ABT) device compared with non-negative pressure drainage on preventing blood loss and allogenic blood transfusion after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: A total of 131 patients (131 knees) with severe knee osteoarthritis who underwent unilateral primary TKA by the same surgeon in Peking University Third Hospital from June 2014 to June 2015 were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into ABT group (64 patients) and control group (67 patients). ABT devices were used for drainage and blood transfusion in the ABT group while the control group used the non-negative pressure drainage only. The results of the drainage fluid volume, the decrease of hemoglobin, the total blood loss, the hidden blood loss and blood transfusion after TKA were compared between the two groups. Results: The drainage fluid volume in ABT group was significantly higher than that in control group [515 mL (80-1 610 mL) vs. 260 mL (40-670 mL), P<0.001]. The autologous blood transfusion in ABT group was 245 mL (60-1 070 mL). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the value of hemoglobin decrease 1 day after surgery (P=0.340) and 3 days after surgery (P=0.524). There were no significant differences in the total blood loss (P=0.101) and the hidden blood loss (P=0.062) between the two groups either. There were 9 patients in the 131 patients who received allogeneic blood transfusion, of whom 5 in the ABT group (5/64, the blood transfusion rate was 7.8%) and 4 in the control group (4/67, the blood transfusion rate was 6.0%), and no significant differences in the blood transfusion rate between the two groups (P=0.943). Conclusion: With the conventional application of using comprehensive hemostatic methods during perioperative period, the ABT device did not show the effective result of controlling postoperative blood loss and failed to reduce the rate of allogeneic blood transfusion in patients with unilateral primary TKA. However, the ABT device could increase the drainage fluid volume and improve the patient’s hospitalization expenses. Therefore, there is no need for routine application of ABT device in unilateral primary TKA.

Key words: Arthroplasty, replacement, knee, Blood transfusion, autologous, Blood loss, surgical

中图分类号: 

  •  
[1] 步召德, 冯梦宇, 季科. 早期胃癌行前哨淋巴结导航手术的实践与思考[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(2): 239-243.
[2] 高加勒, 张忠涛. 局部进展期直肠癌精准治疗现状与展望[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(2): 247-250.
[3] 付浩, 申潞艳, 黄冰洋, 马少华. 免疫治疗背景下食管鳞状细胞癌围手术期治疗的临床思考[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(2): 266-271.
[4] 李斌, 梁寒. 机器人胃癌根治术:研究进展与实践挑战[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(2): 416-422.
[5] FarinEbrahimi, 冯志强, FarazEbrahimi, 韩玮华, 于子杨, 贾宽宽, 安金刚. 上颌药物相关性颌骨坏死的不同分期手术治疗效果[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(1): 107-114.
[6] 唐仁韬, 杨流畅, 聂杰, 王晓燕. 无窦型与有窦型根管治疗后慢性根尖周炎根管外菌群的组成及差异[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(1): 43-49.
[7] 王晓林, 郭邵逸, 陈大召, 温锡杰, 华勇, 张亮, 张秦. 全髋关节置换术治疗系统性红斑狼疮继发股骨头缺血性坏死的随访研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(6): 1081-1088.
[8] 吴昕峰, 满斯亮, 陈大召, 华勇, 温锡杰, 丁盈月, 张亮, 侯秀娟. 中轴型脊柱关节炎合并髋关节终末期受累的长期影像学参数:单中心24年大样本回顾研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(6): 1089-1095.
[9] 王翠萍, 陈哲, 程永静. 超微血流成像评估与膝骨关节炎临床症状的关联研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(6): 1096-1100.
[10] 李浙民, 季加孚, 李国新, 李子禹, 步召德, 高翔宇, 董迪, 唐磊, 邢晓芳, 贾淑芹, 郭婷, 张连海, 陕飞, 季鑫, 王安强. 胃癌精准诊疗技术的创建与推广[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(5): 864-867.
[11] 李博闻, 张强, 孙益鑫. 儿童及青年漏斗胸患者Nuss术后发生脊柱侧弯的风险预测模型建立及验证[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(5): 941-946.
[12] 李宗瀚, 黄洋阅, 李宁, 李明磊, 宋宏程, 张潍平, 刘超. 国产单孔蛇形臂机器人手术系统在儿童肾盂成形术中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(4): 662-665.
[13] 张启鸣, 陈泽波, 田雨, 潘大猛, 刘磊, 张洪宪, 赵磊, 张树栋, 马潞林, 侯小飞. 机器人辅助腹腔镜移植肾切除术经验总结[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(4): 666-669.
[14] 左超, 王国立, 杨昆霖, 车新艳, 孟一森, 张凯. 前列腺体积不同的患者经尿道光纤铥激光前列腺剜除术的有效性及安全性比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(4): 711-716.
[15] 张铃福, 王港, 侯纯升, 崔龙, 王立新, 凌晓锋, 徐智. 腹腔镜下改良经胆囊管胆管引流术在胆石症治疗及胆道疾病诊断中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(4): 748-752.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!