Abstract
Agents that control bleeding and the usage of bypassing agents have made surgery an option to consider in people with hemophilia. However, the lack of consistent definitions for major or minor surgery may lead to inconsistencies in patient management. This literature review has evaluated how surgical procedures in people with hemophilia were categorized as major or minor surgery and assessed the consistency across publications. After screening 926 potentially relevant articles, 547 were excluded and 379 full-text articles were reviewed. Ninety-five articles categorized major or minor surgical procedures; of these, 35 publications categorized three or more major or minor surgical procedures and were included for analysis. Seven (20%) publications provided varying criteria for defining major or minor surgery, five of which defined surgery according to the level of surgical invasiveness. Across all 35 publications, there was considerable variance in the categorization of major and minor surgical procedures and some overlap in surgical nomenclature (eg, type of synovectomy, arthroscopy, and central venous access device insertion/removals). The lack of consistent guidance when referring to major or minor surgery in people with hemophilia needs to be addressed. Clear and consistent definitions, achieved by consensus and promoted by relevant international hemophilia committees, are desirable, to provide guidance on appropriate treatment, to increase the accuracy of trial data and may confound the interpretation of surgical outcomes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 549-559 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 1 2018 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- categorization
- hemophilia
- major surgery
- minor surgery
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Hematology
Cite this
Major and Minor Classifications for Surgery in People With Hemophilia : A Literature Review. / Solimeno, Luigi Piero; Escobar, Miguel A.; Krassova, Snejana; Seremetis, Stephanie.
In: Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, Vol. 24, No. 4, 01.05.2018, p. 549-559.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Major and Minor Classifications for Surgery in People With Hemophilia
T2 - A Literature Review
AU - Solimeno, Luigi Piero
AU - Escobar, Miguel A.
AU - Krassova, Snejana
AU - Seremetis, Stephanie
PY - 2018/5/1
Y1 - 2018/5/1
N2 - Agents that control bleeding and the usage of bypassing agents have made surgery an option to consider in people with hemophilia. However, the lack of consistent definitions for major or minor surgery may lead to inconsistencies in patient management. This literature review has evaluated how surgical procedures in people with hemophilia were categorized as major or minor surgery and assessed the consistency across publications. After screening 926 potentially relevant articles, 547 were excluded and 379 full-text articles were reviewed. Ninety-five articles categorized major or minor surgical procedures; of these, 35 publications categorized three or more major or minor surgical procedures and were included for analysis. Seven (20%) publications provided varying criteria for defining major or minor surgery, five of which defined surgery according to the level of surgical invasiveness. Across all 35 publications, there was considerable variance in the categorization of major and minor surgical procedures and some overlap in surgical nomenclature (eg, type of synovectomy, arthroscopy, and central venous access device insertion/removals). The lack of consistent guidance when referring to major or minor surgery in people with hemophilia needs to be addressed. Clear and consistent definitions, achieved by consensus and promoted by relevant international hemophilia committees, are desirable, to provide guidance on appropriate treatment, to increase the accuracy of trial data and may confound the interpretation of surgical outcomes.
AB - Agents that control bleeding and the usage of bypassing agents have made surgery an option to consider in people with hemophilia. However, the lack of consistent definitions for major or minor surgery may lead to inconsistencies in patient management. This literature review has evaluated how surgical procedures in people with hemophilia were categorized as major or minor surgery and assessed the consistency across publications. After screening 926 potentially relevant articles, 547 were excluded and 379 full-text articles were reviewed. Ninety-five articles categorized major or minor surgical procedures; of these, 35 publications categorized three or more major or minor surgical procedures and were included for analysis. Seven (20%) publications provided varying criteria for defining major or minor surgery, five of which defined surgery according to the level of surgical invasiveness. Across all 35 publications, there was considerable variance in the categorization of major and minor surgical procedures and some overlap in surgical nomenclature (eg, type of synovectomy, arthroscopy, and central venous access device insertion/removals). The lack of consistent guidance when referring to major or minor surgery in people with hemophilia needs to be addressed. Clear and consistent definitions, achieved by consensus and promoted by relevant international hemophilia committees, are desirable, to provide guidance on appropriate treatment, to increase the accuracy of trial data and may confound the interpretation of surgical outcomes.
KW - categorization
KW - hemophilia
KW - major surgery
KW - minor surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042100770&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042100770&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1076029617715117
DO - 10.1177/1076029617715117
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85042100770
VL - 24
SP - 549
EP - 559
JO - Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
JF - Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
SN - 1076-0296
IS - 4
ER -