Is Routine Group and Save Sampling Necessary for Emergency Laparoscopic Appendicectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Laparoscopic appendicectomy is a commonly used approach for the surgical management of acute appendicitis. If complications arise, a blood transfusion may be necessary for patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy. The need for routine group and save (G&S) sampling prior to emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy remains a subject of ongoing discussion. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether routine G&S sampling is needed prior to emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy. Methods The present study retrospectively reviewed G&S sampling for emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy cases over a six-month period at two hospital sites in the United Kingdom: Croydon University Hospital (June 1, 2024, to November 30, 2024) and Tunbridge Wells Hospital (October 1, 2023, to April 30, 2024). A total of 304 patients across both sites were included in the review. Results In 2023, 23 procedures (7.6%) were performed, while 279 procedures (92.4%) occurred in 2024. The patient population consisted of 46.4% males (n = 141) and 53.6% females (n = 163), with a mean age of 37.1 years (median 33, range 6-84). A total of 406 G&S samples were collected, of which 351 (86.5%) were processed and 55 (13.5%) were rejected by the blood bank. From the sample size, only one patient received a blood transfusion prior to surgery due to a low hemoglobin level of 72 g/L, likely resulting from the delayed presentation of a perforated appendix. Conclusion This study suggests that omitting routine G&S sampling is safe for patients undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy. Hence, an individualized risk assessment approach should be used to identify high-risk patients requiring preoperative G&S sampling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".