Routine pretransfusion testing before primary total hip or knee arthroplasty are an expensive and wasteful routine. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The excessive routine ordering of pretransfusion tests (blood typing, screening, and cross-matching) for surgical cases incurs significant unnecessary costs and places an undue burden on transfusion services. This study aims to systematically review the literature regarding the necessity of routine pretransfusion tests before total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and summarize their outcomes. STUDY METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The study's characteristics, the prevalence of over-ordering pretransfusion tests, transfusion rates, and potential cost savings to the healthcare system were analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 17,667 patients. Pooled results revealed a 96.3% over-ordering pretransfusion test rate (95% CI: 0.92-1.00; p < 0.001) among patients undergoing primary THA or TKA. The pooled prevalence of hospital transfusion rate was 3.6%. Notably, there were statistically significant differences in preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) levels between patients not requiring transfusion (Hb = 13.9 g/dl; 95% CI 12.59-15.20; p < 0.001) and those needing transfusion (Hb = 11.9 g/dl; 95% CI 10.69-13.01; p < 0.001) (p = 0.03). The per-patient total cost savings ranged from 28.63 to 191.27 dollars. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that routine pre-transfusion testing for all patients undergoing primary THA or TKA may be unnecessary. We propose limiting pretransfusion test orders to patients with preoperative hemoglobin levels below 12 g/dl in unilateral primary TKA or THA. This targeted approach can result in significant cost savings for healthcare systems and transfusion services by reducing the over-ordering of pretransfusion tests in these surgical procedures.

Local infiltration analgesia does not have benefits in fast-track hip arthroplasty programmes: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimes including local infiltration analgesia (LIA) have been successfully applied in fast-track hip arthroplasty programmes. LIA's contribution to the analgesic effect in hip arthroplasty has been questioned. Our study sought to determine the analgesic efficacy of LIA in THA surgery in a fast-track programme. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis scheduled for arthroplasty were randomised to receive LIA (120 ml ropivacaine 0.2% plus epinephrine 0.5 µ/ml) or saline as a part of a multimodal analgesia regime. The surgical team, the nursing staff, and patients were all blinded regarding patient allocation throughout the study. The primary outcome was pain assessed as a continuous variable using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 4, 8, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the amount of analgesic rescue consumption, complications and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were interviewed and agreed to participate in the study. No statistically significant differences were found between groups for pain measurements at 4, 8, 12, 24 and 48 hours after surgery. There were also no differences in rescue medication consumption, complications, or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest LIA (ropivacaine plus epinephrine, single shot) has no effect in pain management and has not shown benefits for early ambulation in primary THA surgery. Further research is needed to establish the optimal multimodal analgesia regime for THA fast-track programmes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03513276).