Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The routine use of preoperative group and save (G&S) blood tests in emergency laparoscopic appendicectomies has been a standard yet often unquestioned practice. However, with the advancements in laparoscopic techniques and the low risk of intraoperative bleeding, is this precaution necessary? Analysing 276 emergency appendicectomy cases over a year, our study revealed that no transfusions were required due to surgical complications. Nevertheless, routine G&S testing causes considerable financial and resource strains, consuming valuable time and delaying treatment. These results question the value of this practice and suggest a need for reevaluation. Can we achieve better resource management while maintaining patient safety? By proposing targeted testing for high-risk individuals, this article sparks debate on optimising preoperative strategies.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11686453 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.74898 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!