This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
Abstract
Unnecessary preoperative cross-matching of blood wastes time and money and may increase
morbidity and mortality by delaying a necessary operation. One hundred and ninetythree
consecutive patients who underwent semi-urgent operative treatment for fractures of
the neck of the femur at a large district general hospital were evaluated. Of the
patients with haemoglobin values of 11g/dl or more, only 12 per cent required transfusion
for the operation. None of the patients with fractures treated by ‘pinning’ required
a transfusion. It is our opinion that patients with normal preoperative haemoglobin
levels can undergo operative treatment for fractures of the neck of femur after typing
but without the necessity of cross-matching blood.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to InjuryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Is routine cross-matching for two units of blood necessary in elective surgery?.Am. Med. J. Surg. 1981; 142: 370
- Femoral neck fractures in elderly women: a prospective study.Age Aging. 1976; 5: 102
- Improved utilization of blood for elective surgery.Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1983; 156: 326
- The maximum surgical blood order schedule and surgical blood use in the United States.Transfusion. 1976; 16: 380
- Type and hold system for better blood utilization.Transfusion. 1980; 20: 725
- Use of blood in elective surgery.JAMA. 1980; 243: 1536
- Effective use of blood in elective surgery.Med. J. Aust. 1979; 2: 575
- Use of blood in elective general surgery: an area of wasted resources.Br. Med. J. 1983; 286: 868
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
September 20,
1985
Identification
Copyright
© 1986 Published by Elsevier Inc.
