ArticleAnesthesia and analgesia2018
In Vitro Evaluation of a Novel Image Processing Device to Estimate Surgical Blood Loss in Suction Canisters.
Article in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning in Assessing Intraoperative Blood Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International nursing review · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of common perioperative blood loss estimation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2021Pooled it
- Rethinking intraoperative blood loss monitoring: a decision-oriented framework for clinically integrated assessment.International journal of burns and trauma · 2026Review
- A life cycle assessment of disposing intra-operative collected fluids, a comparative study between the Neptune 3 versus canister drainage.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Real-time and accurate estimation of surgical hemoglobin loss using deep learning-based medical sponges image analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The visually estimated blood volume in scaled canisters based on a simulation study.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Article
- A better method for the dynamic, precise estimating of blood/haemoglobin loss based on deep learning of artificial intelligence.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Perioperative blood loss: estimation of blood volume loss or haemoglobin mass loss?Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2020Article
- Triton sponge and canister app for estimating surgical blood loss.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians are tasked with monitoring surgical blood loss. Unfortunately, there is no reliable method available to assure an accurate result. Most blood lost during surgery ends up on surgical sponges and within suction canisters. A novel Food and Drug Administration-cleared device (Triton system; Gauss Surgical, Inc, Los Altos, CA) to measure the amount of blood present on sponges using computer image analysis has been previously described. This study reports on performance of a complementary Food and Drug Administration-cleared device (Triton Canister System; Gauss Surgical, Inc, Los Altos, CA) that uses similar image analysis to measure the amount of blood in suction canisters.
methodsKnown quantities of expired donated whole blood, packed red blood cells, and plasma, in conjunction with various amounts of normal saline, were used to create 207 samples representing a wide range of blood dilutions commonly seen in suction canisters. Each sample was measured by the Triton device under 3 operating room lighting conditions (bright, medium, and dark) meant to represent a reasonable range, resulting in a total of 621 measurements. Using the Bland-Altman method, the measured hemoglobin (Hb) mass in each sample was compared to the results obtained using a standard laboratory assay as a reference value. The analysis was performed separately for samples measured under each lighting condition. It was expected that under each separate lighting condition, the device would measure the various samples within a prespecified clinically significant Hb mass range (±30 g per canister).
resultsThe limits of agreement (LOA) between the device and the reference method for dark (bias: 4.7 g [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.8-5.6 g]; LOA: -8.1 g [95% CI, -9.7 to -6.6 g] to 17.6 g [95% CI, 16.0-19.1 g]), medium (bias: 3.4 g [95% CI, 2.6-4.1 g]; LOA: -7.4 g [95% CI, -8.7 to -6.1 g] to 14.2 g [95% CI, 12.9-15.5 g]), and bright lighting conditions (bias: 4.1 g [95% CI, 3.2-4.9 g]; LOA: -7.6 g [95% CI, -9.0 to -6.2 g] to 15.7 g [95% CI, 14.3-17.1 g]) fell well within the predetermined clinically significant limits of ±30 g. Repeated measurements of the samples under the various lighting conditions were highly correlated with intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.995 (95% CI, 0.993-0.996; P < .001), showing that lighting conditions did not have a significant impact on measurements. Hb mass bias was significantly associated with hemolysis level (Spearman ρ correlation coefficient, -0.137; P = .001) and total canister volume (Spearman ρ correlation coefficient, 0.135; P = .001), but not ambient illuminance.
conclusionsThe Triton Canister System was able to measure the Hb mass reliably with clinically acceptable accuracy in reconstituted blood samples representing a wide range of Hb concentrations, dilutions, hemolysis, and ambient lighting settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.