International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1695–1699 | Cite as

Intra-operative cell salvage in pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery: a retrospective comparative study

  • Abdulla JawedEmail author
  • Awaiz Ahmed
  • Mark Rees Williams
Original Paper


Aim of the study

To determine if the intraoperative use of cell salvage (CS) led to a decrease in allogeneic blood transfusion by comparing with a control group that did not receive CS. We also looked at the effects of injury severity and surgical approach.


This was a retrospective study at a major trauma center. One hundred and nineteen patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation of pelvic and acetabular fractures with (59 patients) or without intra-operative blood cell salvage (60 patients). The main outcome measurements were allogeneic blood transfusion during and after surgery with respect to CS, injury severity and surgical approach.


We did not find any significant difference in the allogeneic blood transfusion between the CS and non-CS groups (rate—62% vs. 48%, p value 0.12 {significant at < 0.05}, volume 5.56 units vs. 5.58 units, p value 0.33). The rate (71.1% vs. 48.9%, p = 0.02) and volume (7.6 units vs. 4.3 units, p value 0.00057) of post-operative blood transfusion was significantly higher in the more severely injured (ISS > 20), but there was no significant difference between the CS and non-CS groups. No significant difference was seen between either patients who had anterior or posterior surgical approaches.


We did not find CS clearly efficacious clinically or cost effective, even in the more severely injured patients or when different surgical approaches were used. We do not advocate the routine use of CS in pelvic and acetabular surgery, but selectively, based on surgeon and patient preference.


Cell salvage Pelvic fracture Acetabular fracture Allogeneic blood transfusion 



We would like to thank Dr. Abdul-Rahman Gomaa for his help with the statistical analyses. We would like to thank Mr. Ahmed El-Bakoury for his advice about the study design.

Author contribution

All authors have been directly involved with the different aspects of this clinica lstudy.

Compliance with ethical standards

Institutional review board approval has been obtained.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent has been obtained from the patients of this study.


  1. 1.
    Scannell BP, Loeffler BJ, Bosse MJ et al (2009) Efficacy of intraoperative red blood cell salvage and autotransfusion in the treatment of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23:340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Magnussen RA, Tressier MA, Obremskey WT et al (2007) Predicting blood loss in isolated pelvic and acetabular high-energy trauma. J Orthop Trauma 21:603–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mason L, Fitzgerald C, Powell-Tuck J, Rice R (2011) Intraoperative cell salvage versus postoperative autologous blood transfusion in hip arthroplasty: a retrospective service evaluation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(5):398–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carless PA, Henry DA, Moxey AJ, O'Connell D, Brown T, Fergusson DA (2010) Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001888Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridgens JP, Evans CR, Dobson PMS et al (2007) Intra-operative red blood cell salvage in revision hip surgery: a case matched study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gause P, Siska P, Westrisk E et al (2008) Efficacy of intraoperative cell saver in decreasing postoperative blood transfusions in instrumented posterior lumbar fusion patients. Spine 33:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lakomkin N, Greenberg SE, Obremskey WT, Sethi MK (2015) The risk of adverse events in orthopaedic trauma varies by anatomic region of surgery: an analysis of fifty thousand four hundred and twenty one patients. Int Orthop 39(11):2153–2159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burlew CC (2017) Preperitoneal pelvic packing for exsanguinating pelvic fractures. Int Orthop 41(9):1825–1829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng M, Lee KY, Chang AL, et al. (2018) Three-in-one protocol reduces mortality of patients with haemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures-a five year multi-centred review in Hong Kong. Int Orthop. Feb 27. doi:
  10. 10.
    Nicolai P, Leggetter PP, Glithero PR et al (2004) Autologous transfusion in acetabuloplasty in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86B:110–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huët C, Salmi R, Fergusson D et al (1999) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. Anesth Analg 89:861–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bigsby E, Acharya MR, Ward AJ, Chesser TJ (2013) The use of blood cell salvage in acetabular fracture internal fixation surgery. J Orthop Trauma 27(10):e230–e233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Odak S, Raza A, Shah N, Clayson A (2013) Clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of intraoperative cell salvage in pelvic trauma surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(5):357–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Firoozabadi R, Swenson A, Kleweno C, Routt MC (2015) Cell saver use in acetabular surgery: does approach matter? J Orthop Trauma 29(8):349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guerra J, Cuckler J (1995) Cost effectiveness of intraoperative autotransfusion in total hip arthroplasty surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 315:212–222Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zarin J, Grosvenor D, Schurman D, Goodman S (2003) Efficacy of intraoperative blood collection and reinfusion in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(11):2147–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reitman C, Watters W, Sassard W (2004) The Cell Saver in adult lumbar fusion surgery: a cost-benefit outcomes study. Spine 29:1580–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savvidou C, Chatziioannou SN, Pilichou A, Pneumaticos SG (2009) Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cell saving blood autotransfusion in adult lumbar fusion. Transfus Med 19:202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weiss J, Skaggs D, Tanner J et al (2007) Cell saver: is it beneficial in scoliosis surgery? J Child Orthop 1:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spiess BD (2004) Risks of transfusion: outcome focus. Transfusion 44:4S–14SCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Level 11Derriford HospitalPlymouthUK
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsCroydon University HospitalCroydonUK

Personalised recommendations