This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (87)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jeffrey M. Turnbull, MD, FRCP (C); Carol Buck, MD, PhD, DPH

Arch Intern Med. 1987;147(6):1101-1105.

Abstract
• To assess the value of routine screening preoperative investigations in an otherwise healthy surgical population, the charts of 2570 patients undergoing cholecystectomy in two university teaching hospitals were reviewed. Of these, 1010 patients who were believed to be free of active disease other than cholelithiasis were selected for further study. Preoperative screening investigations were assessed in terms of frequency of use and abnormalities detected. The predictive values of these tests were analyzed and compared with information obtained from the history and physical examination. The frequency with which action was taken because of abnormal test results was also determined. Of the 5003 preoperative screening tests performed, abnormal results were obtained in 225. Of these, 104 were of potential importance. Action resulting from these abnormalities occurred in 17 cases. In only four patients could a conceivable benefit have arisen from a preoperative screening test. When compared with the results of the history and physical examination, routine preoperative investigations provided little further information that altered management in otherwise healthy surgical patients undergoing cholecystectomy.

(Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1101-1105)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Medicine, University Hospital (Dr Turnbull), and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the University of Western Ontario (Dr Buck), London, Ontario.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Nov 12, 1986.

Reprint requests to Department of Medicine, University Hospital, PO Box 5339, Postal Station A, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5A5 (Dr Turnbull).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Elimination of Preoperative Testing in Ambulatory Surgery
Chung et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2009;108:467-475.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Prevalence and Significance of Low Preoperative Hemoglobin in ASA 1 or 2 Outpatient Surgery Candidates
Olson et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2005;101:1337-1340.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Increases in P-Wave Dispersion Predict Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Chandy et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2004;98:303-310.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening for the Risk for Bleeding or Thrombosis
Eckman et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;138:W-15-W-24.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Prevalence and Predictive Value of Abnormal Preoperative Laboratory Tests in Elderly Surgical Patients
Dzankic et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2001;93:301-308.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effective Preoperative Evaluation and Testing
Fischer
Chest 1999;115 :96S-100S.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Do Ophthalmologists, Anesthesiologists, and Internists Agree About Preoperative Testing in Healthy Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery?
Bass et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1248-1256.
ABSTRACT  

Usefulness of Preoperative Laboratory Assessment of Patients Undergoing Elective Herniorrhaphy
Adams et al.
Arch Surg 1992;127:801-805.
ABSTRACT  

Efficacy of the Stat Serum Electrolyte Panel in the Management of Older Emergency Patients
Singal et al.
Med Decis Making 1992;12:52-59.
ABSTRACT  

The Utility of Preoperative Electrocardiograms in the Ambulatory Surgical Patient
Gold et al.
Arch Intern Med 1992;152:301-305.
ABSTRACT  

Preoperative Screening: Value of Previous Tests
Macpherson et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1990;113:969-973.
ABSTRACT  

Routine Use of the Prothrombin and Partial Thromboplastin Times
Erban et al.
JAMA 1989;262:2428-2432.
ABSTRACT  

Benign Familial Hyperphosphatasemia
Siraganian et al.
JAMA 1989;261:1310-1312.
ABSTRACT