Original Article
The impact of intra-operative cell salvage during open radical prostatectomy
Abstract
Background: To examine the effect of intra-operative cell salvage (ICS) in open radical prostatectomy.
Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy for malignancy at our institution between 10/04/13 and 10/04/17 were enrolled. Patients were grouped and compared based on whether they received ICS. Primary outcomes were allogeneic transfusion rates, and disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were complications and transfusion-related cost.
Results: Fifty-nine men were enrolled; 30 used no blood conservation technique, while 29 employed ICS. There were no significant differences between groups in age, pre- or post-operative haemoglobin, Charlson comorbidity index, operation duration or length of stay. Tumour characteristics were also similar between groups, including pre-operative prostate specific antigen, post-operative Gleason score, T-stage, nodal status and rates of margin positivity. Compared with controls, the ICS group had longer follow up (945 vs. 989 days; P=0.0016). The control and ICS groups were not significantly different in rates of tumour recurrence (6 vs. 3 patients; P=0.30) or complications (10 vs. 5 patients; P=0.16). While the proportion of patients receiving allogenic transfusion was similar (9 vs. 6 patients; P=0.41), fewer red blood products transfused (40 vs. 12 units) meant transfusion related costs were lower in ICS patients (AUD $47,666 vs. $37,429).
Conclusions: ICS reduced transfusion related costs, without affecting allogeneic transfusion rates, tumour recurrence or complication rates. These findings extend the literature supporting ICS in oncological surgery. Prospective randomised studies are needed to confirm the existing level III evidence.
Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy for malignancy at our institution between 10/04/13 and 10/04/17 were enrolled. Patients were grouped and compared based on whether they received ICS. Primary outcomes were allogeneic transfusion rates, and disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were complications and transfusion-related cost.
Results: Fifty-nine men were enrolled; 30 used no blood conservation technique, while 29 employed ICS. There were no significant differences between groups in age, pre- or post-operative haemoglobin, Charlson comorbidity index, operation duration or length of stay. Tumour characteristics were also similar between groups, including pre-operative prostate specific antigen, post-operative Gleason score, T-stage, nodal status and rates of margin positivity. Compared with controls, the ICS group had longer follow up (945 vs. 989 days; P=0.0016). The control and ICS groups were not significantly different in rates of tumour recurrence (6 vs. 3 patients; P=0.30) or complications (10 vs. 5 patients; P=0.16). While the proportion of patients receiving allogenic transfusion was similar (9 vs. 6 patients; P=0.41), fewer red blood products transfused (40 vs. 12 units) meant transfusion related costs were lower in ICS patients (AUD $47,666 vs. $37,429).
Conclusions: ICS reduced transfusion related costs, without affecting allogeneic transfusion rates, tumour recurrence or complication rates. These findings extend the literature supporting ICS in oncological surgery. Prospective randomised studies are needed to confirm the existing level III evidence.
