TPT 8.16 Is Routine Pre-Operative Group and Save Necessary for Cholecystectomy? A Single Centre Retrospective Audit
Clicks: 4
ID: 324069
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.9
/100
4 views
3 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #239 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Aims Cholecystectomy is one of the most commonly performed general surgical procedures in UK. Despite a low risk of peri-operative haemorrhage and no specific recommendations, routine pre-operative group and save (G&S) testing remains widely practiced in cholecystectomy. This audit aimed to determine the incidence of peri-operative blood transfusion, compare current practice with previous departmental audit and evaluate cost-effectiveness of routine pre-operative G&S testing. Methods A retrospective audit was conducted of all cholecystectomies performed at a single tertiary centre between 1 January and 31 December 2024. Laboratory records, operative notes and discharge summaries were reviewed. Patients undergoing concurrent intra-operative procedures involving other organs were excluded. Results Of 844 cholecystectomies identified, 776 met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range 35–62) and 94% of procedures were performed laparoscopically. Routine pre-operative G&S testing was performed in over 92% of cases. Only one patient (0.12%) required a postoperative blood transfusion, following coffee-ground vomiting and blood observed in the surgical drain. No intraoperative transfusions occurred. Two bleeding-related complications were recorded: one required same-day return to theatre for washout and another patient developed a subcapsular haematoma; neither required blood transfusion. These findings were consistent with a previous audit conducted in 2020 (n=448) where no patients required peri-operative blood transfusion. Conclusion Routine pre-operative G&S testing was not supported by the observed transfusion requirements in this cohort. A selective, risk-based approach to pre-operative G&S testing appears safe and may optimise transfusion service utilisation while offering potential cost savings.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7172540461
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Martha Tin, Arslan Pannu, Emma Hutchings, Nehal Shah |
| Journal | the british journal of surgery |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/bjs/znag087.273
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.