Accuracy of gravimetric method of blood loss estimation during open myomectomy

C. Osakwe, I. Mbachu, Oluchi Osakwe, O. Ikpeze
{"title":"Accuracy of gravimetric method of blood loss estimation during open myomectomy","authors":"C. Osakwe, I. Mbachu, Oluchi Osakwe, O. Ikpeze","doi":"10.4103/ijmh.IJMH_18_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Estimation of blood loss during surgery is a critical component that may affect patients’ management. Objective: The study evaluated the accuracy of the gravimetric method of blood loss estimation in women with an open myomectomy. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional analytical study that evaluated the accuracy of the gravimetric method of measuring blood loss during open myomectomy for patients with symptomatic fibroid at a Teaching Hospital in Nigeria. The diagnosis of uterine fibroids was based on clinical examination and ultrasound scan. A proforma was used to record information from those who gave written consent. The gravimetric method and visual estimation were compared with the actual blood loss (ABL) as the gold standard. Statistical analysis was done using Stata version 16. Student’s t-test was used to compare the mean blood loss estimation of the different methods. The significant level was set at P-value <0.05. Results: A total of 78 women who had open myomectomy participated in the study. The mean ABL was 787.11 ± 63.17 mL. The mean blood loss by the gravimetric method was 755.95 ± 492.72 mL, while the mean estimation error by the gravimetric method was 31.16 ± 263.23 mL. The mean difference between the estimated ABL and the loss estimated by the gravimetric method was 31.18 mL. This was not statistically significant (P-value = 0.30). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the ABL and blood loss by visual method (mean difference = 161.64, P-value = 0.02). Conclusion: The gravimetric estimation of blood loss during surgery correlated with actual estimated blood loss. It should be considered in the routine estimation of blood loss during surgery.","PeriodicalId":14106,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medicine and Health Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medicine and Health Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmh.IJMH_18_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Estimation of blood loss during surgery is a critical component that may affect patients’ management. Objective: The study evaluated the accuracy of the gravimetric method of blood loss estimation in women with an open myomectomy. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional analytical study that evaluated the accuracy of the gravimetric method of measuring blood loss during open myomectomy for patients with symptomatic fibroid at a Teaching Hospital in Nigeria. The diagnosis of uterine fibroids was based on clinical examination and ultrasound scan. A proforma was used to record information from those who gave written consent. The gravimetric method and visual estimation were compared with the actual blood loss (ABL) as the gold standard. Statistical analysis was done using Stata version 16. Student’s t-test was used to compare the mean blood loss estimation of the different methods. The significant level was set at P-value <0.05. Results: A total of 78 women who had open myomectomy participated in the study. The mean ABL was 787.11 ± 63.17 mL. The mean blood loss by the gravimetric method was 755.95 ± 492.72 mL, while the mean estimation error by the gravimetric method was 31.16 ± 263.23 mL. The mean difference between the estimated ABL and the loss estimated by the gravimetric method was 31.18 mL. This was not statistically significant (P-value = 0.30). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the ABL and blood loss by visual method (mean difference = 161.64, P-value = 0.02). Conclusion: The gravimetric estimation of blood loss during surgery correlated with actual estimated blood loss. It should be considered in the routine estimation of blood loss during surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
切开子宫肌瘤切除术中血量估计的重量法准确性
背景:手术中出血量的估计是影响患者治疗的关键因素。目的:评价剖宫腔子宫肌瘤切除术后重量法测定出血量的准确性。材料和方法:这是一项横断面分析研究,评估了尼日利亚一家教学医院对有症状的肌瘤患者进行切开子宫肌瘤切除术时重量法测量出血量的准确性。子宫肌瘤的诊断主要基于临床检查和超声扫描。表格被用来记录那些给予书面同意的人的信息。将重量法和目测法与实际失血量(ABL)作为金标准进行比较。统计分析使用Stata version 16完成。采用学生t检验比较不同方法估计的平均失血量。p值<0.05为显著水平。结果:共有78名接受开放性子宫肌瘤切除术的妇女参加了这项研究。平均ABL为787.11±63.17 mL。重量法的平均失血量为755.95±492.72 mL,重量法的平均估计误差为31.16±263.23 mL。估计的ABL与重量法估计的损失之间的平均差值为31.18 mL。这没有统计学意义(p值= 0.30)。而目测ABL与出血量比较,差异有统计学意义(平均差异= 161.64,p值= 0.02)。结论:术中失血量的重量估计值与实际失血量估计值具有相关性。术中出血量的常规估计应考虑到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of the incidence of polypharmacy in cases of adverse drug reactions at a Tertiary Care Centre in India Knowledge, perception, and readiness of health professionals towards the use of electronic health record during COVID-19 pandemic in Lagos, Nigeria Diet-mediated immune optimization as a preventive and therapeutic adjunct for management of multiple endocrine neoplasia Unmet need for assisted reproductive technology in Nigerian Tertiary Hospitals: An unspoken menace Factors influencing routine vaccination uptake and completion among children aged 12–23 months in Ilorin, North-Central Nigeria: A cross-sectional survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1