ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2024
Hemoglobin loss method calculates blood loss during pancreaticoduodenectomy and predicts bleeding-related risk factors.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy and agreement of three blood-loss estimation methods versus the HbMass method for assessing blood loss during PLIF.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Perioperative blood loss in robotic urologic surgery: a retrospective evaluation of estimation methods.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The conventional method of blood-loss calculation can underestimate true blood loss during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a dual-institute experience.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Risk factors for postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study from 2015 to 2023.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Calculation methods for intraoperative blood loss: a literature review.BMC surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe common clinical method to evaluate blood loss during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is visual inspection, but most scholars believe that this method is extremely subjective and inaccurate. Currently, there is no accurate, objective method to evaluate the amount of blood loss in PD patients.
aimThe hemoglobin (Hb) loss method was used to analyze the amount of blood loss during PD, which was compared with the blood loss estimated by traditional visual methods. The risk factors for bleeding were also predicted at the same time.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 341 patients who underwent PD in Shandong Provincial Hospital from March 2017 to February 2019. According to different surgical methods, they were divided into an open PD (OPD) group and a laparoscopic PD (LPD) group. The differences and correlations between the intraoperative estimation of blood loss (IEBL) obtained by visual inspection and the intraoperative calculation of blood loss (ICBL) obtained using the Hb loss method were analyzed. ICBL, IEBL and perioperative calculation of blood loss (PCBL) were compared between the two groups, and single-factor regression analysis was performed.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the preoperative general patient information between the two groups (
conclusionThe ICBL in patients who underwent PD was greater than the IEBL, but there is a certain correlation between the two. The Hb loss method can be used to evaluate intraoperative blood loss. A history of diabetes, preoperative bilirubin > 200 μmol/L and high BMI increase the patient's risk of bleeding.
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.