Why the study?
Is routine preoperative laboratory testing useful and cost-effective compared to selective testing?
Is routine preoperative laboratory testing useful and cost-effective compared to selective testing?
Preoperative laboratory testing should be selective and based on appropriate clinical indications rather than performed routinely.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Favors selective over routine preoperative testing; challenges consensus but leaves open need for confirmatory trials.
Routine preoperative laboratory testing has become dogma to many. Often, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospital administrators, and even patients expect that there will be some "labs" on the chart prior to any operative procedure. Many have questioned the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of such a policy. There is little evidence to support the need for routine preoperative testing and much evidence against it. Preoperative testing should be based on appropriate indications. This makes the assessment of the preoperative laboratory evaluation difficult for a medical quality assurance program. The question that arises is, how much routine preoperative laboratory testing is enough? The answer to this question depends on (a) the purpose of this testing and (b) the limitations and potential misinterpretations of laboratory testing. This article will discuss the reasons for the potential misinterpretation of laboratory tests and then the data supporting selective preoperative laboratory testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vie Velanovich (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: