| Literature DB >> 21600028 |
Yasir J Sepah1, Masood Umer, Tashfeen Ahmad, Faria Nasim, Muhammad Umer Chaudhry, Muhammad Umar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21600028 PMCID: PMC3117744 DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-6-22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Figure 1Age groups.
Summary of results
| Group-I (N = 47) | 826 ml | 1288 ml | 1.49 g/dl | 1.94 g/dl | 0.12 | 0.9 | 6 |
| Group-II (N = 52) | 1828 ml | 2695 ml | 1.79 g/dl | 2.21 g/dl | 1.24 | 2.6 | 35 |
| p value | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.0005 | < 0.0005 | 0.005 | 0.043 | |
Figure 2Comparison of transfusion requirement in Osteoarthritis & Rheumatoid arthritis.
Different methods of blood conservation and their complications.
| Alternatives used to avoid allogenic blood transfusions and their disadvantages | |
|---|---|
| • Cardiac, Vasovagal | |
| Not effective in Orthopedic Procedures | |
| Cost effectiveness of the postoperative blood collection devices was challenged | |
| Persistent hypotension, Reactionary haemorrhage, Cardiac Ischemic Injury, Ischemic Optic neuritis [ | |
| Routine use not justified due to high cost [ | |
| Very effective [ | |
| • Low dose not effective in orthopedic procedure [ | |