PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9354828

A standardized method for calculating blood loss.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The estimation of blood loss for a surgical procedure is both poorly reproducible and typically underestimated. Therefore, comparison of surgical transfusion outcomes such as blood loss and amount of blood transfused from one institution to another, or from one surgeon to another, is difficult. Recently, mathematical modeling has contributed to our understanding of transfusion strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A mathematical model of blood loss for a surgical hospitalization was developed on the basis of recently described mathematical principles for blood loss and hemodilution. The model was designed so that the calculation of blood loss would be based on easily measured factors such as the patient's blood volume, the number and type of red cell units transfused, the initial hematocrit, the discharge hematocrit, the transfusion trigger, the volume of intraoperatively salvaged blood transfused, and the amount of hemodilution performed. The calculated blood loss was then compared with the intraoperative blood loss actually estimated by the anesthesiologist in 250 consecutive patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. RESULTS: The mathematical equations were placed in a computer model to allow rapid calculation of a particular patient's blood loss. Figures were derived from the computer modelling to facilitate rapid manual calculation of the blood loss. There was a significant relation (p < 0.001) between the calculated blood loss for the hospitalization and the estimated intraoperative blood loss. However, the calculated blood loss was on average 2.1 times the intraoperative blood loss estimated by the anesthesiologist. CONCLUSION: The use of such mathematical modeling to rapidly estimate a patient's blood loss has the potential to allow ready, objective comparisons between sites and even surgeons. It also allows for a more judicial and informed decision as to what (if any) blood should be available or what blood-conservation techniques should be employed for a specific patient.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M E Brecher, T Monk, L T Goodnough. 1997. A standardized method for calculating blood loss.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.1997.371098016448.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men and the second leading cause of cancer death. A randomized study was performed on patients with localized prostate cancer and treated with radical prostatectomy using the perineal or the retropubic approach comparing oncological outcomes, cancer control, and functional results. STUDY DESIGN: Between 1997 and 2004, in a randomized study 200 patients underwent a radical prostatectomy performed by retropubic (100 patients) or perineal (100 patients) approach. RESULTS: Differences between hospital stay, duration of catheter drainage, intraoperative blood loss, and transfusion requirements were statistically significant in favor of perineal prostatectomy. Differences between positive surgical margins and urinary continence in the two groups were not statistically significant at 6 and 24 months. Differences between erectile function at 24 months were statistically significant in favor of retropubic prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Radical perineal prostatectomy is an excellent alternative approach for radical surgery in the treatment of early prostate cancer.

Blood Loss, Surgical↗

Bipolar pulse coagulation for resection of the cirrhotic liver.

BACKGROUND: The major technical challenge of liver surgery is controlling bleeding during transection of the parenchyma. The Gyrus hand piece (GHP) is a bipolar diathermy pulsation instrument that is similar in design to a large hemostat (Péan) clamp that divides tissue while the clamp remains closed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the peri-operative data from 10 patients with early cirrhosis (stage 1-4) who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular cancer between February 2004 and July 2005. Five consecutive patients who underwent resection using the GHP were compared to five other patients who underwent resection using the traditional "crush clamp technique" (CCT). Six patients underwent minor hepatectomy (<3 segments) and four underwent major hepatectomy (>3 segments). RESULTS: When the GHP was used, the mean Pringle time was 13 +/- 5 min, mean blood loss was 520 mL +/- 118, and mean operative time was 252 +/- 15 min. When the CCT was used, the average Pringle time was 13 +/- 3 min, mean blood loss was 630 +/- 67 mL, and mean operative time was 312 +/- 29 min. There were 2 major complications in the GHP group and 3 in the CCT group. Major complications included transient hepatic failure (i.e., ascites/encephalopathy) and biloma formation. CONCLUSIONS: One patient from each group suffered a minor wound complication. The average hospital stay was 8 days (range, 6-9) for the GHP group, and 8 days (range, 7-10) for CCT group. The operative mortality rate was 0%. Our preliminary results demonstrate that GHP provides an excellent and safe alternative to CCT for dividing the liver parenchyma in cirrhotic patients.

Blood Loss, Surgical↗