Talk:Intraoperative blood salvage

As

As discussed with a Wikipedia administrator (W. Marsh - thanks for the feedback), I have permission from the company that produces the Hemobag (Global Blood Resources) to create this entry. The Wikipedia entry on the Hemobag presents where it fits in the field of bloodless surgey and blood salvage.

Although the Hemobag is a commercial product, it is legitimately one of about 3 ways to process and transfuse a patient's own autologous blood during surgery.

Moreover, the article is loaded with valuable background information on blood salvaging and educational references on "bloodless surgery" and bloodless surgey websites and also takes a neutral point of view on the product.

---

Comment (18 Mar. 2006): I created this page as an entry on The Hemobag, not on intraoperative blood salvage. However, Wikipedia administrators deleted the article and then told me it was okay to re-post it after I explained I had permission from the Hemobag company to use the material, hence no copyright was broken.

After I re-posted the article, the administrators removed all reference to The Hemobag (6 sentences and 4 literature citations),claiming it was advertising, changed the title of the article, told me to discuss the issue elsewhere (on a deletion page), did NOT respond to any of my comments there, and then presumably decided to keep the article (literally as written except for removing Hemobag information and one or two miniscule edits!) with its new title.

Interesting how the Wikipedia process works! Sort of like a highjack of someone's work, no? I posted it here, so I suppose it's fair game but it seems strange to eliminate the key part of the article, i.e., its title and reason for being - as an entry on a new way to salvage autologous blood - and still keep it.

---

Hi Blut:

...elminate the key part of the article, i.e., its title and reason for being.

I think the repeated use of the trade name and the title were the big problems-- it made the thing look a bit too much like an advertisement. As for hijacking -- I wouldn't call it that... but it's part of the deal. That said, after a problem is identified the pendulum swings a bit too far in the other direction-- if you watch the article you'll probably see the term Hemobag will make a re-appearance. Pls sign your posts with ~~~~, as described on your talk. Bonus is... it will automagically added the date. :) Nephron 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Move section on Bloodless options

The "Bloodless options" section on this page should be moved to the Bloodless surgery article. Thios article is about Intraoperative blood salvage, one of many available options for bloodless surgery. --Microbiojen 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Article merge

I was recently working on fixing an orphan article, autotransfusion, and after some digging around came upon this article, which appears to cover the same subject. The newer article is larger than this one, but not knowing much about the subject, I cannot really comment on in which direction to merge the articles, or whether in fact a merge is required. I was hoping that somebody who knows about the subject might be able to help. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

== Further Reading and Citation for Hemobag as the ONLY WHOLE BLOOD ultrafiltration device in clinical use ==

As the original creator of this page. I've added 'Further Reading on the Hemobag' and added a reference to support that it's the ONLY whole blood ultrafiltration device, there are no others. NoBlood.Org is a good source as it's frequented by all the players in the blood salvage health industry. Be aware that it's hard to prove a negative. BUT if there were another supplier out there, they'd be challenging this. Note that the key words are WHOLE BLOOD device. blut (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)