ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018
Routine blood group and antibody screening prior to emergency laparoscopy.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Substantial international variation in the cost of blood group and save and crossmatch: A systematic review.British journal of haematology · 2026Pooled it
- Requirement of preoperative blood typing for cholecystectomy and appendectomy: a systematic review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- The carbon footprint of group and save in elective and emergency surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Routine Group-and-Save (G+S) Testing Prior to Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A 10-Year Single-Centre Review.Cureus · 2025Article
- Preoperative Group and Save Tests in Elective and Emergency Cholecystectomies: An Economic and Environmental Burden.Cureus · 2025Article
- Reducing routine group and save testing in emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy surgery: a quality improvement project assessing the triple bottom line.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Is Routine Group and Save Sampling Necessary for Emergency Laparoscopic Appendicectomy?Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Pre-Operative Group and Save in Elective and Emergency Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Necessity, Cost-Effectiveness, and Own Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Assessment of routine pre-operative group and save testing in patients undergoing cholecystectomy: a retrospective cohort study.NIHR open research · 2024Article
- The Necessity of Routine Pre-operative Group and Save Testing for Emergency Appendectomies.Cureus · 2023Article
- Our over-reliance on single-use equipment in the operating theatre is misguided, irrational and harming our planet.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021Article
- Routine group and save screening prior to emergency laparoscopic surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Studies show that rates of blood transfusion associated with general surgical laparoscopy are low. Currently, there are no national guidelines in the UK regarding blood group and antibody screening (G&S) for patients undergoing emergency laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess whether using G&S before emergency laparoscopic general surgery routinely is worthwhile by identifying rates of perioperative transfusion. Methods Data were collected retrospectively on all emergency laparoscopic procedures at a single district general hospital between January 2014 and 31 December 2016. Emergency laparoscopic general surgical cases were included and gynaecological cases excluded. Records were reviewed to ascertain whether G&S was performed, whether antibodies were detected and whether patients were transfused. Results A total of 562 emergency laparoscopic cases were performed. The median age was 28 years (range: 6-95 years). Laparoscopic appendicectomy (n=446), diagnostic laparoscopy (n=47) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=25) were the most common procedures. Of the total patient cohort, 514 (91.5%) and 349 (70.1%) had a first and second G&S respectively while 30 (5.3%) had no G&S. Four patients (0.71%) had antibodies detected. One patient (0.18%) received a transfusion. This patient had undergone laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer and there was no major intraoperative haemorrhage but he was transfused perioperatively for chronic anaemia. Conclusions These results demonstrate a low rate of blood transfusion in emergency laparoscopic general surgery. The majority of these patients had a low risk of major intraoperative haemorrhage and we therefore argue that G&S was not warranted. We propose a more targeted approach to the requirement for preoperative G&S and the use of O negative blood in the event of acute haemorrhage from major vessel injury.
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.