STOMATOLOGY EDU JOURNAL 2017, Volume 4, Issue 3 SEJ_3-2017_Online - Page 42

TRANSFUSION NEED IN ORTHOGNATHIC surgery - A REVIEW Table 9. Transfusion rates for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery without additional or complex procedures (numbers): summary. Bimaxillary surgery without additional or complex procedures n° patients Autologous Homologous Total number of (n)=patients (n)=patients patients transfused (n) Predonation policy 969 324 18 342* No predonation policy 1264 0 187 187 2233 324 205 529 * Concerning the 18 patients in the predonation policy group, we found the following: - Rummasak et al. (2011) 42 had 5 patients with homologous transfusion; it is not stated if this was supplementary to the autologous blood donation. - Hegtvedt et al. (1987) 13 had 8 patients in this group with homologous transfusion without preceding autologous transfusion. - Rohling et al. (1999) 41 used both autologous blood and acute normovolemic hemodilution, and 2 patients had additional homologous transfusion. This is considered an overlap in the table of 2 patients. - Kessler et al. (2006) 39 had one autologous donor receiving additional homologous blood. - Böttger (2007) 4 referred to homologous blood transfusion for those who did not participate in the predonation program. Study n/N %(95% CI) Predonation policy Hegtvedt et al. (1987) 41/96 42.7 (32.7;53.2) Moenning et al. (1995) 1/33 3.0 (0.1;15.8) Guyuron et al. (1996) 12/20 60.0 (36.1;80.9) Puelacher et al. (1998) 37/45 82.2 (67.9;92.0) Lenzen et al. (1999) 69/69 100.0 (94.8;100.0) Rohlin et al. (1999) 23/127 18.1 (11.8;25.9) Felfernig-Boehm et al. (2001) 3/30 10.0 (2.1;26.5) Gong et al. (2002) 16/83 19.3 (11.4;29.4) Nkeke et al. (2005) 3/56 5.4 (1.1;14.9) Kessler et al. (2006) 7/65 10.8 (4.4;20.9) Botger S. (2007) 66/82 80.5 (70.3;88.4) Lassacher (2009) 1/55 1.8 (0.0;9.7) Rummasak et al. (2011) 63/208 30.3 (24.1;37.0) Total 342/969 39.0 (22.8;57.4) No predonation policy Golia et al. (1985) 0/4 0.0 (0.0;60.2) Ash and Mercuri (1985) 4/20 20.0 (5.7;43.7) Fromme et al. (1986) 35/56 62.5 (48.5;75.1) Lessard et al. (1989) 15/52 28.8 (17.1;43.1) Samman et al. (1996) 78/291 26.8 (21.8;32.3) Yu et al. (2000) 1/21 4.8 (0.1;23.8) Umstadt et al. (2000) 2/66 3.0 (0.4;10.5) Carry et al. (2001) 0/24 0.0 (0.0;14.2) Stewart et al. (2001) 9/27 33.3 (16.5;54.0) Panula et al. (2001) 31/91 34.1 (24.5;44.7) Dhariwal et al. (2004) 9/115 7.8 (3.6;14.3) Ueki et al. (2005) 0/29 0.0 (0.0;11.9) Landes et al. (2008) 2/70 2.9 (0.3;9.9) Kretschmer et al. (2008) 0/91 0.0 (0.0;4.0) Varol et al. (2009) 0/45 0.0 (0.0;7.9) Fenner et al. (2009) 0/105 0.0 (0.0;3.5) Garg (2011) 0/125 0.0 (0.0;2.9) Karimi et al. (2012) 1/32 3.1 (0.1;16.2) Total 187/1264 12.5 (5.6;24.0) Overall total 529/2233 23.8 (14.8;35.1) % transfusion Figure 3. Error-bar chart, bimaxillary surgery without additional surgery; dots representing % of transfusion, blue dots represent study total, red dots represent group total, green dot represents overall total, horizontal lines representing 95% confidence interval. stable. These series heavily influence the dataset and reflect a shift in transfusion policy. This policy is not new and was already advocated in Germany in 2003 (Habler et al., 2007). 51 When combining the effects of time and predonation policy, we find an opposite evolution in transfusion policy. The predonation centers have not changed transfusion policy and account for the majority of blood transfusions in this series. Predonation is B[Z[[\X܈[[X^[\H\\H™^HH]Y[[ٝ\[ۋ][Y]\˜]]\ XH LXH LKH[Z[\]]YHوX\[[ٝ\[ۈ[]]\\]Z[XH\Y[[[\\X[\\[\]X]H[YH][˂ܙYH][  NNN H LNL[\\[ۈH]]܋XH M\[H\و[X^[\H\\Y\ŠYܙY]YY\\H]Hܜ\ۙ[›[X\[\[YHو]][ٝ\[ۜX\B[\][HYH\XX[]H[[ٝ\[ۈXB\]]\ۘ][ۋHHو\[[ۈ\ܚ]X[\X܈܂[ٝ\[ۈ\Y[[\Y]Y[\\Y\]\]\HY\Y\8&\H][و]Y[x&BX]\H]YY\\H[H\\XH[Z\YX[\\X[\\H[[H\][ۈوBYX[\\X[\\K܈][[H^HHYX[\\X[\\H\YX\\Y [YܙY][H]Hܛ[[[ۋ۝Y\[[ۋB\\XYYY ۝Y\[[ۈZ[ ۝Y\[[ۈ[\]K[۝YXHYH M N N LNNB˜XYYZ