One-compartmental biometric blood loss calculation after cesarean section

Milošević, Nataša; Popović, Jovan; Grujić, Zorica; Rapaić, Milan R.

doi:10.1007/s13318-011-0042-0

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, three different formulas are used in the literature to calculate the total blood volume of patients. The Moore formula [75,76], which, like Nadler's formula [75][76][77][78][79][80][81] takes into account height, weight and sex for the calculation, and the ICSH formula [75,76], which uses gender and body surface area to calculate the total blood volume. The formula according to Nadler was used most often in the literature.…”

Section: Calculated Blood Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of common perioperative blood loss estimation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gerdessen

Meybohm

Choorapoikayil

et al. 2020

J Clin Monit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimating intraoperative blood loss is one of the daily challenges for clinicians. Despite the knowledge of the inaccuracy of visual estimation by anaesthetists and surgeons, this is still the mainstay to estimate surgical blood loss. This review aims at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of currently used measurement methods. A systematic review of studies on estimation of blood loss was carried out. Studies were included investigating the accuracy of techniques for quantifying blood loss in vivo and in vitro. We excluded nonhuman trials and studies using only monitoring parameters to estimate blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate systematic measurement errors of the different methods. Only studies that were compared with a validated reference e.g. Haemoglobin extraction assay were included. 90 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and were analyzed. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, as only these were conducted with a validated reference. The mixed effect meta-analysis showed the highest correlation to the reference for colorimetric methods (0.93 95% CI 0.91–0.96), followed by gravimetric (0.77 95% CI 0.61–0.93) and finally visual methods (0.61 95% CI 0.40–0.82). The bias for estimated blood loss (ml) was lowest for colorimetric methods (57.59 95% CI 23.88–91.3) compared to the reference, followed by gravimetric (326.36 95% CI 201.65–450.86) and visual methods (456.51 95% CI 395.19–517.83). Of the many studies included, only a few were compared with a validated reference. The majority of the studies chose known imprecise procedures as the method of comparison. Colorimetric methods offer the highest degree of accuracy in blood loss estimation. Systems that use colorimetric techniques have a significant advantage in the real-time assessment of blood loss.

show abstract

Section: Calculated Blood Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of common perioperative blood loss estimation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gerdessen

Meybohm

Choorapoikayil

et al. 2020

J Clin Monit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study we investigated changes of the coagulation system after caesarean section. Quantification of the blood loss during caesarean section is challenging, but can reliably be done with the OCBM [15]. Visual assessment underestimates the blood loss and correlates poorly with objective methods and with the changes in haemoglobin or coagulation parameters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dilution factor was calculated using the haemoglobin levels in blood (before caesarean section) and in the suction device bottles. Finally, blood loss was calculated using the "onecompartmental biometric method" (OCBM) described as V = [0.0115 × body weight (kg) × ln (preoperative Hb/postoperative Hb)] + [0.1905 × height 3 (m) × ln (preoperative Hb/postoperative Hb)] + 0.3158 [15].…”

Section: Assessment Of Blood Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%