Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39364467›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

A Retrospective Study of Routine Preoperative Blood Grouping and Saving in Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Minimally Utilized Expenditure.

Sadhasivam Ramasamy, Seshu Kumar Bylapudi, Sidharth Kumar, Jatinder Singh, Rafique Umer Harvitkar, Giri Babu Gattupalli, Yousaf Tanveer, Sara Harvitkar, Moustafa Mohmoud, Mohamadali Sayyad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sadhasivam RamasamyGeneral Surgery, Queens Hospital Burton, Burton, GBR.
Seshu Kumar BylapudiGeneral Surgery, Kettering General Hospital, Kettering, GBR.
Sidharth KumarGeneral Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Sandwell, GBR.
Jatinder SinghHepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Leicester Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, GBR.
Rafique Umer HarvitkarGeneral Surgery, Queen Alexandra University Hospital, Portsmouth, GBR.
Giri Babu GattupalliSurgery, Diana Princess of Wales Hospital, Grimsby, GBR.
Yousaf TanveerGeneral Surgery, Craigavon Area Hospital, Craigavon, GBR.
Sara HarvitkarPsychology, Southern Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Havant, GBR.
Moustafa MohmoudOrthopedic Surgery, Queen Alexandra University Hospital, Portsmouth, GBR.
Mohamadali SayyadUrology, Ishaan Urology and Kidney Care Hospital, Mumbai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy typically undergo routine preoperative blood grouping and saving (G&S). Despite the low incidence of blood transfusion in this context, the acquisition and processing of G&S samples incur a cost of £31 ($40) per sample. This study aims to review blood transfusion usage in these procedures to determine whether routine G&S sampling is clinically necessary or represents an avoidable expense. Methods A retrospective case note analysis was conducted on patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy from January 2019 to June 2020. Collected data included the timing of G&S, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels, timing of blood transfusions, and the number of units transfused. Results Six hundred and thirteen patients were involved in the study. Among the 323 patients who had laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 256 (78.8%) underwent preoperative G&S sampling. Of the 290 patients who had laparoscopic appendicectomy, 190 (65.5%) received preoperative G&S sampling. Notably, none of the 613 patients required a blood transfusion within 30 days of their surgery. The total cost of G&S for the cohort amounted to £22,196 ($28,425). Conclusions The findings suggest that routine G&S sampling is an unnecessary expenditure for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy. It is recommended that G&S sampling be reserved for high-risk groups to optimize resource allocation and reduce unnecessary costs.

Indexed as

blood group and saveblood transfusionlaparoscopic appendicectomylaparoscopic cholecystectomylaparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID39364467
PMCPMC11449458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.