ArticleCureus2025
Routine Group-and-Save (G+S) Testing Prior to Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A 10-Year Single-Centre Review.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine preoperative group-and-save (G+S) testing remains common before laparoscopic appendectomy in UK hospitals, despite limited evidence of its necessity. This study evaluated the clinical need and cost-effectiveness of routine G+S sampling in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at a single centre over 10 years.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at Homerton University Hospital, London, UK, including all patients who underwent emergency or elective laparoscopic appendectomy between October 2014 and October 2024. Electronic records were used to identify patients and any perioperative transfusions. For transfused patients, operative and medical records were reviewed to determine the indication and timing of transfusion (surgical bleeding vs. other causes, intraoperative vs. postoperative). Demographic and clinical data were extracted by two independent reviewers and anonymized. We compared our transfusion rate to those reported in six published studies using two-proportion z-tests (significance p<0.05). A cost analysis estimated the financial impact of routine G+S, using the National Health Service (NHS) cost of £15-£21 per test.
resultsAmong 1,733 patients (mean age 51 years; 925 males, 808 females), five (0.29%) received blood transfusions. None occurred intraoperatively. Only two patients (0.12%) required red cell transfusions due to postoperative surgical bleeding (one following perforated appendicitis and one unexplained hemorrhage). The other three transfusions were for non-surgical causes: one patient with sickle cell disease (red cells), one with postoperative anemia (fresh frozen plasma), and one with sepsis-related coagulopathy (platelets). Our overall red cell transfusion rate (0.17%) did not differ significantly from published rates (range 0-0.46%; all p>0.05). There were no deaths. Routine G+S testing for all 1,733 patients would have cost approximately £26,000-£36,500 over the 10 years (≈£15-£21 per test); with only two clinically relevant surgical transfusions, the cost per such case would exceed £13,000.
conclusionRoutine preoperative G+S testing before laparoscopic appendectomy provides minimal clinical benefit in low-risk patients and represents unnecessary resource use. Our 10-year data show an extremely low transfusion rate, with most transfusions driven by patients' underlying conditions rather than operative bleeding. These findings support a selective, risk-based approach to G+S: reserve testing for patients with significant comorbidities or anticipated complex surgery while omitting routine G+S in low-risk cases. Such a strategy would maintain patient safety but reduce laboratory workload and costs.
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.