Bloodless Surgery 226
isaacbowman writes "Dr. Charles Bridges, a Pennsylvania Hospital cardiologist, says says regarding new bloodless surgery options - "Among the benefits are reductions in recovery time, hospital stay, cost and complications -- as well as an estimated $20,000 in savings per patient." Advances in medicine have made this possible and Dr. Bridges also says, "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented." Dr. Patricia Ford, director of Pennsylvania Hospital's Center for Bloodless Medicine & Surgery, further states, why blood transfusions are dangerous, saying that they are "like getting a transplant; they can be risky and should be a last resort.""
Don't get too exited. (Score:5, Informative)
M
Re:Bloodless Surgery? (Score:5, Informative)
The artices does go ahead and admit that the more complex a procedure, the less likely this is possible: so a full-on heart transplant is far less likely to be bloodless than, say, an appendectomy or a stomach reduction (or other similar surgeries that don't require large incisions).
Re:Driving force for bloodless surgery (Score:5, Informative)
Jehovah's Witness have a theological objection to blood transfusions [watchtower.org], but unlike Christian Scientists, not to medical treatment in general. In fact, they are quite insistent on high quality healthcare [watchtower.org].
As such, they advocate [watchtower.org] the use of blood transfer alternatives.
There are various groups of Witnesses that advocate changing the doctrine [ajwrb.org], but, however odd it may seem to the rest of us, it's one of core teachings of the church and has survived even when other once-rejected medical technologies (organ transplants, certain immunizations) have now been accepted.
This doctrine has caused the Witnesses to push the medical community to come up with many alternatives to transfusion. These alternatives include Erythropoietin Therapy [nejm.org], Hemopure, a bovine-hemoglobin based blood substitute [anesthesiologyinfo.com] (this was quite a surprise, as previously even animal blood was considered taboo), perfluorocarbon based blood substitutes [watchtower.org] (back when I was young, I knew Witnesses who had been guinea pigs for this stuff), and a host of others [adam.com]. There are also specific surgical guidelines [unipi.it] published in dealing with Witnesses.
All in all, the Witnesses are one of the main driving forces for research into lessening the need for blood transfusions. There are others to be sure (type matching, blood shortages, infectious diseases carried by tainted blood, etc.), but nothing beats having a large pool of otherwise healthy patients who are highly motivated to be test subjects.
Re:Transfusion != Transplant (Score:5, Informative)
BTW: Jehovah's Witnesses vary in terms of their religious beliefs around transfusion. For some, some components of blood can be transfused, but not others, whereas other patients are more stringent.
Re:Driving force for bloodless surgery (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bloodless Surgery? (Score:3, Informative)
Old, but modified and state of the art tech (Score:5, Informative)
Every joint procedure (knee or shoulder 'scope) allows the surgeon a better view than the open method,'cause the camera is so small, it can get into many places, that you normally can't even see. Gallbladder surgery now is overnight or same day, as compared to a one to two week stay for the open method.
And yes, I am a surgeon , and I have done both open and closed shoulder repairs, and the 'scope method is waaaaay better. You can see more anatomy, more pathology, less blood loss, and less tissue damage. Trust me, we all need to sleep at night, and want what's best for the patient.
Re:JW article on Bloodless Surgery (Score:5, Informative)