What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate the accuracy of various blood loss estimation methods compared to the HbMass method during PLIF.

February 11, 2026Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research0 citationsOpen Access

Accuracy and agreement of three blood-loss estimation methods versus the HbMass method for assessing blood loss during PLIF

QMQianpeng MaShizuoka City Shimizu Hospital XDXingyu DuanNingxia Medical University BLBo LiShenyang Ligong University

Puntos clave

This research aims to evaluate the accuracy of various blood loss estimation methods compared to the HbMass method during PLIF.
Comparison of three blood-loss estimation methods: Gross formula, visual estimation, and HbMass method.
Assessment of bias and agreement limits among the different methods.
Evaluation of implications for peri-operative volume therapy.
The Gross formula method exhibited the smallest bias and narrowest agreement limits compared to the HbMass method.
Visual estimation was found to be clinically unreliable for blood loss assessment.
Recommendations are made for using the Gross formula method supplemented by HbMass in high-risk cases.

Resumen

Among routine methods, the Gross formula method offers the smallest bias and narrowest agreement limits versus HbMass, whereas visual estimation is clinically unreliable. PLIF-enhanced recovery pathways should replace sole reliance on visual assessment with the Gross formula method, supplemented by HbMass in high-risk cases, to optimize peri-operative volume therapy and reduce transfusion-related complications.

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo