Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr;100(4):322-325.
doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0033. Epub 2018 Feb 27.

Routine blood group and antibody screening prior to emergency laparoscopy

J Barrett-Lee  1 , J Vatish  1 , M Vazirian-Zadeh  1 , P Waterland  1
Affiliations

Routine blood group and antibody screening prior to emergency laparoscopy

J Barrett-Lee et al. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

Introduction Studies show that rates of blood transfusion associated with general surgical laparoscopy are low. Currently, there are no national guidelines in the UK regarding blood group and antibody screening (G&S) for patients undergoing emergency laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess whether using G&S before emergency laparoscopic general surgery routinely is worthwhile by identifying rates of perioperative transfusion. Methods Data were collected retrospectively on all emergency laparoscopic procedures at a single district general hospital between January 2014 and 31 December 2016. Emergency laparoscopic general surgical cases were included and gynaecological cases excluded. Records were reviewed to ascertain whether G&S was performed, whether antibodies were detected and whether patients were transfused. Results A total of 562 emergency laparoscopic cases were performed. The median age was 28 years (range: 6-95 years). Laparoscopic appendicectomy (n=446), diagnostic laparoscopy (n=47) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=25) were the most common procedures. Of the total patient cohort, 514 (91.5%) and 349 (70.1%) had a first and second G&S respectively while 30 (5.3%) had no G&S. Four patients (0.71%) had antibodies detected. One patient (0.18%) received a transfusion. This patient had undergone laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer and there was no major intraoperative haemorrhage but he was transfused perioperatively for chronic anaemia. Conclusions These results demonstrate a low rate of blood transfusion in emergency laparoscopic general surgery. The majority of these patients had a low risk of major intraoperative haemorrhage and we therefore argue that G&S was not warranted. We propose a more targeted approach to the requirement for preoperative G&S and the use of O negative blood in the event of acute haemorrhage from major vessel injury.

Keywords: Blood grouping and cross-matching; Emergency; Laparoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ransom SB, McNeeley SG, Hosseini RB. Cost-effectiveness of routine blood type and screen testing before elective laparoscopy. 1995; : 346–348. - PubMed
    1. Usal H, Nabagiez J, Sayad P, Ferzli GS. Cost effectiveness of routine type and screen testing before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 1999; : 146–147. - PubMed
    1. Ghirardo SF, Mohan I, Gomensoro A, Chorost MI. Routine preoperative typing and screening: a safeguard or a misuse of resources. 2010; : 395–398. - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . London: NICE; 2016.
    1. Aquina CT, Blumberg N, Probst CP et al. . Large variation in blood transfusion use after colorectal resection: a call to action. 2016; : 411–418. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources