The Use of Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Two-Stage Revision of Septic Hip Arthroplasties: A Double-Center Retrospective Study

• Published in: Antibiotics (Basel) Vol. 12; no. 6; p. 982
• Main Authors: Krüger, Lara, Strahl, André, Koepke, Leon-Gordian, Fink, Bernd, Beil, Frank Timo, Hubert, Jan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 30.05.2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Analysis; Anemia; Antibiotics; Arthroplasty; Blood; Blood transfusions; cell salvage; Clustering; Complications; Complications and side effects; Hemoglobin; Infection; Infections; Joint replacement surgery; Knee; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Microorganisms; Morbidity; Mortality; patient blood management; Patients; periprosthetic joint infection; Pneumonia; revision arthroplasty; Revisions; Risk analysis; Risk assessment; Safety management; septic surgery; Transplants & implants; Viral infections; Germany; cell salvage; periprosthetic joint infection; patient blood management; revision arthroplasty; septic surgery
• ISSN: 2079-6382; 2079-6382
• DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12060982

(1) Background: intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) devices can provide a valuable contribution to patient blood management. An infection of the surgical site presents a formal contraindication to the use of ICS. To date, there is no recommendation for the use of ICS in the context of reimplantation in two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty. (2) Methods: at two hospitals of maximum endoprosthetic care, a retrospective evaluation of patients who had received ICS blood during reimplantation of hip arthroplasties was performed. Patients' and surgical characteristics, intraoperative cultures, and the occurrence of septic complications in the short- and long-term follow-up were recorded. (3) Results: 144 patients were included. Detection of positive cultures during reimplantation occurred in 13 cases. A total of 127 patients showed no complication, 8 patients showed a non-specific septic complication, 6 patients a local persistence of infection, and 3 patients a possible bloodstream-associated infection. No significant correlation was found between the occurrence of complications and the detection of positive intraoperative cultures. (4) Conclusions: no clustering of septic complications due to the use of ICS during reimplantation was found. In the risk-benefit analysis, we considered the use of ICS during reimplantation to be indicated in terms of patient blood management, while the safety of the procedure during septic first-stage resection arthroplasty or septic one-stage exchange arthroplasty was not investigated. Given the paucity of comparative literature, further studies are needed on ideal patient blood management in the setting of septic revision arthroplasty.