窗帘上的血迹:多专科血液溢出估计值比较。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY World Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1002/wjs.12315
Henry B G Baird, Gabriella Rivas, Ryan Horn, Prudhvi Kodali, Evert A Eriksson, Langdon A Hartsock, Kristoff R Reid
{"title":"窗帘上的血迹:多专科血液溢出估计值比较。","authors":"Henry B G Baird, Gabriella Rivas, Ryan Horn, Prudhvi Kodali, Evert A Eriksson, Langdon A Hartsock, Kristoff R Reid","doi":"10.1002/wjs.12315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Estimated blood loss (EBL) is an important part of the perioperative process. This project aims to determine the accuracy of perioperative team members to estimate blood volume on drapes and the operating room floor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Aliquots of unused human blood were used to create surgical scenarios, and standardized pictures and videos were taken. Physicians, residents, nurses, medical students, and surgical technicians were surveyed and asked to estimate the blood volume for each series. Accuracy and consistency of responses was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and forty five responses were recorded: 57 attending physicians, 36 residents, 27 registered nurses, 17 medical students, and seven circulating surgical techs. Median percent error (PE) for all cases was 211.11%, demonstrating a global overestimation of blood volume. PE for the 150 mL images was statistically significantly lower than that of the 50 and 100 mL images. Circulating Surgical Technicians were the most accurate group, with a median PE of 125%, followed closely by Medical Students (PE = 158.33%). The most accurate specialty was Orthopedics (PE = 168.06%). The least accurate groups were Attending Physicians (PE = 286.11%) and General surgery (GSGY) (PE = 327.78%). The most accurate orthopedic surgery and GSGY subspecialties were Hand (PE = 237.64%) and Vascular (PE = 108.33%), respectively. Statistical analyses showed no significant differences by clinical role, surgical specialty, or subspecialty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates a global overestimation of blood volume when using the visual method, with improved accuracy at higher volumes. Our findings highlight the limitations of visual estimation methods for EBL.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blood on the drapes: A multispecialty comparison of blood spill estimates.\",\"authors\":\"Henry B G Baird, Gabriella Rivas, Ryan Horn, Prudhvi Kodali, Evert A Eriksson, Langdon A Hartsock, Kristoff R Reid\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wjs.12315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Estimated blood loss (EBL) is an important part of the perioperative process. This project aims to determine the accuracy of perioperative team members to estimate blood volume on drapes and the operating room floor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Aliquots of unused human blood were used to create surgical scenarios, and standardized pictures and videos were taken. Physicians, residents, nurses, medical students, and surgical technicians were surveyed and asked to estimate the blood volume for each series. Accuracy and consistency of responses was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and forty five responses were recorded: 57 attending physicians, 36 residents, 27 registered nurses, 17 medical students, and seven circulating surgical techs. Median percent error (PE) for all cases was 211.11%, demonstrating a global overestimation of blood volume. PE for the 150 mL images was statistically significantly lower than that of the 50 and 100 mL images. Circulating Surgical Technicians were the most accurate group, with a median PE of 125%, followed closely by Medical Students (PE = 158.33%). The most accurate specialty was Orthopedics (PE = 168.06%). The least accurate groups were Attending Physicians (PE = 286.11%) and General surgery (GSGY) (PE = 327.78%). The most accurate orthopedic surgery and GSGY subspecialties were Hand (PE = 237.64%) and Vascular (PE = 108.33%), respectively. Statistical analyses showed no significant differences by clinical role, surgical specialty, or subspecialty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates a global overestimation of blood volume when using the visual method, with improved accuracy at higher volumes. Our findings highlight the limitations of visual estimation methods for EBL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12315\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:估计失血量(EBL)是围术期过程的重要组成部分。本项目旨在确定围手术期团队成员估算帷幔和手术室地面血量的准确性:方法:使用等量未使用的人体血液创建手术场景,并拍摄标准化图片和视频。对医生、住院医师、护士、医科学生和手术技师进行调查,要求他们估算每个系列的血容量。对回答的准确性和一致性进行了分析:结果:共记录了 145 个回答:57 名主治医师、36 名住院医师、27 名注册护士、17 名医学生和 7 名循环手术技术员。所有病例的百分比误差(PE)中位数为 211.11%,表明总体上高估了血容量。在统计学上,150 毫升图像的 PE 明显低于 50 毫升和 100 毫升图像。循环手术技师是最准确的群体,PE 中位数为 125%,紧随其后的是医科学生(PE = 158.33%)。准确率最高的专业是骨科(PE = 168.06%)。准确率最低的组别是主治医师(PE = 286.11%)和普通外科(GSGY)(PE = 327.78%)。最准确的骨科手术和普通外科亚专科分别是手外科(PE = 237.64%)和血管外科(PE = 108.33%)。统计分析显示,临床角色、外科专科或亚专科无明显差异:本研究表明,使用目测法时,血容量被全面高估,但在血容量较高时准确性有所提高。我们的研究结果凸显了EBL目测法的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Blood on the drapes: A multispecialty comparison of blood spill estimates.

Introduction: Estimated blood loss (EBL) is an important part of the perioperative process. This project aims to determine the accuracy of perioperative team members to estimate blood volume on drapes and the operating room floor.

Methods: Aliquots of unused human blood were used to create surgical scenarios, and standardized pictures and videos were taken. Physicians, residents, nurses, medical students, and surgical technicians were surveyed and asked to estimate the blood volume for each series. Accuracy and consistency of responses was analyzed.

Results: One hundred and forty five responses were recorded: 57 attending physicians, 36 residents, 27 registered nurses, 17 medical students, and seven circulating surgical techs. Median percent error (PE) for all cases was 211.11%, demonstrating a global overestimation of blood volume. PE for the 150 mL images was statistically significantly lower than that of the 50 and 100 mL images. Circulating Surgical Technicians were the most accurate group, with a median PE of 125%, followed closely by Medical Students (PE = 158.33%). The most accurate specialty was Orthopedics (PE = 168.06%). The least accurate groups were Attending Physicians (PE = 286.11%) and General surgery (GSGY) (PE = 327.78%). The most accurate orthopedic surgery and GSGY subspecialties were Hand (PE = 237.64%) and Vascular (PE = 108.33%), respectively. Statistical analyses showed no significant differences by clinical role, surgical specialty, or subspecialty.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates a global overestimation of blood volume when using the visual method, with improved accuracy at higher volumes. Our findings highlight the limitations of visual estimation methods for EBL.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
期刊最新文献
Safety of thyroidectomy as day care surgery at a rural setting in Eastern Uganda. Reduction in perforated appendicitis incidence between rural and urban populations after introducing social health insurance in Vietnam: A population-based study. Author's reply: Is routine histopathological analysis of hemorrhoidectomy specimens necessary? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The utility of alcohol saliva test strips compared to the breathalyzer in trauma patients in a resource-limited setting. Author's reply: Impact of surgical specialization on emergency upper gastrointestinal surgery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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