Evaluation of Autologous Blood in Pterygium Surgery With Conjunctival Autograft
PURPOSE Autologous blood has been used exploratively with conjunctival autograft in pterygium surgery. However, it is controversial whether autologous blood performed better than other fixation methods, including fibrin glue and sutures. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using autologous blood in pterygium surgery with conjunctival autograft. METHODS The study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Embase databases were systematically searched from their establishment until April 1, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing autologous blood with fibrin glue/suture in pterygium surgery with conjunctival autograft were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcome measurements were recurrence, graft displacement, graft retraction, and surgical duration. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Community, Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) was used to perform the statistical analysis. When I < 50%, statistical heterogeneity was considered acceptable, and a fixed-effects model was adopted; alternatively, the random-effects model was used. RESULTS Seven randomized controlled trials including 516 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. Four studies with 379 patients compared autologous blood and fibrin glue. Autologous blood was inferior to fibrin glue with respect to surgical duration, graft retraction, and graft displacement. However, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of the recurrence rate. Four studies with 152 patients compared autologous blood and traditional suturing. Autologous blood was superior to sutures in terms of surgical duration and inferior to sutures in terms of graft retraction. No difference was detected in terms of graft displacement and recurrence rate. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, autologous blood is an appropriate method for graft fixation in pterygium surgery. Current research suggests that autologous blood derivatives may be a promising approach after pterygium excision. However, this requires further confirmation.
Are cell salvage and autologous blood transfusion safe in endonasal surgery?
Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 2010;142((3, Suppl 1):):S3-6.
OBJECTIVE Endoscopic transnasal approaches to the skull base and intracranial disease are an emerging subspecialty. The limits of this approach are often dictated by exposure and blood loss. Cell salvage techniques are widely used in other surgical fields. However, in otolaryngology, questions remain regarding its safety because work is performed in a contaminated field. In this literature review, we present the evidence for perioperative cell saver blood transfusion in potentially contaminated fields and the need for further investigation of its use in endonasal surgery. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched for relevant articles. REVIEW METHODS All English articles discussing autologous blood transfusion in endonasal surgery were reviewed. RESULTS Despite a wide search pattern, no articles that discuss this topic were found in the English literature. Therefore, we went on to present data on the general use of cell saver blood in contaminated fields. CONCLUSION Cell saver blood is widely accepted in surgery. It offers many advantages in elective operations in which blood loss is expected to be significant. Cell saver blood has been transfused from contaminated fields in other forms of surgery without an associated increase in morbidity. There is good evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis is mandatory in this setting. There is no direct evidence that cell salvage blood is safe in endonasal surgery. Cell salvage is part of a multimodality approach, including the use of hypotensive anesthesia, topical procoagulants, a dedicated team with appropriate equipment, and a good surgical technique with a focus on hemostasis.