Solimeno Luigi Piero, Escobar Miguel A, Krassova Snejana, Seremetis Stephanie
1 Emergency Trauma Department, IRCCS Cà Granda Foundation, Maggiore Hospital, Milan, Italy.
2 Department of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Texas, Health Science Center and the Gulf States Hemophilia and Thrombophilia Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2018 May;24(4):549-559. doi: 10.1177/1076029617715117. Epub 2017 Jul 6.
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.
控制出血的药物和旁路药物的使用使手术成为血友病患者可考虑的一种选择。然而,对于大手术或小手术缺乏一致的定义可能导致患者管理上的不一致。这篇文献综述评估了血友病患者的外科手术如何被归类为大手术或小手术,并评估了各出版物之间的一致性。在筛选了926篇潜在相关文章后,排除了547篇,对379篇全文文章进行了综述。95篇文章对大手术或小手术进行了分类;其中,35篇出版物对三种或更多的大手术或小手术进行了分类,并被纳入分析。7篇(20%)出版物提供了定义大手术或小手术的不同标准,其中5篇根据手术侵入程度来定义手术。在所有35篇出版物中,大手术和小手术的分类存在相当大的差异,手术命名也存在一些重叠(如滑膜切除术、关节镜检查以及中心静脉通路装置置入/取出的类型)。在提及血友病患者的大手术或小手术时缺乏一致的指导意见这一问题需要得到解决。通过共识达成并由相关国际血友病委员会推广的清晰一致的定义是可取的,以便为适当的治疗提供指导,提高试验数据的准确性,并可能混淆对手术结果的解释。