RESUMO
PURPOSE: We present a retrospective study about the transfusional needs and the results of the preoperative autologous donation programme in our centre during 1996, in the Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Surgery Service's patients (SOT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: During 1996 the SOT Service carried out 592 major programmed surgical procedures with implants: hip prostheses (HP), knee prostheses (KP) and spinal column fixings (SCF). We've reviewed transfusion forms of the Blood Bank and the preoperative autologous donation forms of the patients sent to us. We've analysed the data with the EpiInfo 6.04 of CDC. Atlanta and SSPS programmes, using the chi 2 of Pearson's Test for qualitative variables and T-Student's test for 2 quantitative variables. RESULTS: The put 387 HP, 118 KP and 87 SCF. 1399 units of blood were administered to 437 patients: 310 HP, 64 KP and 63 SCF. The units/patient (U/P) mean was: 3.3 in HP, 2.3 in PTR and 3.5 in SCF. They sent 99 patients to be programmed for autotransfusion, of which 15 were excluded. The patients' number and the surgical procedures were: 39 HP, 7 KP and 38 SCF. They solicited 247 units (2.9 U/P) and we took out 91.4% of these and the programme was finished in the 73.8% of patients. They transfused 311 U, autologous 176, to 91.6% of programmed patients. Only autologous blood was received by 48% of transfused patients without any statistically significant differences (SSD) (p > 0.05) between the different prostheses. The difference among the transfusion needs of HP and SCF and over KP is SSD (p < 0.001), being non significant between HP and SCF. The probability of getting an autotransfusion programme is bigger in SCF, with a SSD (p < 0.001) of SCF over the HP and the KP and non significant between the last two. The probability of being transfused is greater in the programmed autotransfusion group, this being SSD (p < 0.001), as much of global form as comparing separately each type of prostheses. In the programmed autotranfusion group there are no SSD (p > 0.05) between the type of prostheses and the probability of being transfused, finding the same SSD when we compare the U/P mean and each type of prostheses. The opposite occurred to the patients programmed, it is SSD (p < 0.001) as much of global form as comparing the U/P means in each type of prostheses. Finally, between the global U/P transfused global in the patients that we did an autotransfusion on and those we didn't the difference is SSD (p < 0.001), seeing the same SSD comparing the U/P means in each type of prostheses between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the autotransfusion is safer than the homologous transfusion and the high percentage of this type of patients that need transfusion, 80% of HP, 54% of KP and 73% of SCF 72%, it would be desirable to enlarge the autotransfusion preoperative programme because it is only carried out on 14.18% of this type of procedures.