ArticleTransfusion2026
Barriers and facilitators to cell saver use in damage control surgery.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCell savers reduce the use of allogeneic blood and can serve as an important adjunct during blood shortages. This study investigates the user perspective on cell saver (CS) use during damage control surgery (DCS) in the Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA survey was conducted amongst trauma surgeons and anesthesiologists from Dutch level 1 trauma centers and military-affiliated hospitals. The survey assessed the perceived usability and usefulness of CS in DCS, addressing factors such as logistics, training, experience, (contra)indications, and perceived suitability of CS or reinfusion of unwashed salvaged blood during blood shortages. Responses were analyzed using a five-point scale.
results195 of the 707 (28%) invited clinicians completed the survey. Most rated CS as very useful or essential during DCS (trauma surgeons: 58%, anesthesiologists: 64%). Staff (90%) and disposables (84%) were reportedly available, but reported concerns included CS being time-consuming (trauma: 23%, anesthesia: 40%), contamination risk from gastrointestinal injuries (trauma: 37%, anesthesia: 21%), and insufficient suction power (trauma: 19%, anesthesia: 10%). During blood shortages, most respondents considered CS suitable for DCS (trauma: 54%, anesthesia: 63%), but fewer supported reinfusion of unwashed salvaged blood (trauma: 62%, anesthesia: 25%). DISCUSSION: The routine use of CS during DCS may be hampered by practical and clinical barriers, such as time constraints, limited training, and the risk of complications. Targeting these areas and correlating these findings to clinical outcomes may increase the use of autologous blood transfusion techniques.
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.