Skip to main content

Table 9 Urologic procedures

From: Use of Floseal®, a human gelatine-thrombin matrix sealant, in surgery: a systematic review

Author and year Comparator and patients per arm (n) Primary endpoint Principal results
Gill 2005[26] Floseal® (63) Reducing haemorrhagic complications NS differences in the mean warm ischaemia time (p = 0.55), blood loss (p = 0.36), the operating time, or the length of hospital stay. Floseal® had significantly fewer overall complications (p = 0.008).
No Floseal® (laparoscopic suturing) (68)
Guzzo 2009[27] Floseal® (19) Operating and warm ischaemia times, blood loss, postoperative transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, and costs Similar safety and efficacy for the two alternatives, and Gelfoam® was less expensive than Floseal®.
Gelfoam® (21)
Koni 2012[28] Floseal® (11) Differences in complications The use of haemostatic agents significantly reduced postoperative complications. Among haemostatic agents, TachoSil® provided the best benefits in terms of postoperative complications.
Tachosil® (25)
No use of haemostatic agents (7)
Nogueira 2008[29] Floseal® (25) Haemostasis and blood loss The ischaemia time (p = 0.148) and blood loss (p = 0.518) were comparable between the two groups.
Surgiflo® (10)
Pace 2010[30] Floseal® (15) Efficacy in achieving haemostasis Statistically higher rates of successful haemostasis and a shorter time to haemostasis were observed in the Floseal® group (p < 0.001 both).
Infrared-sapphire coagulator (ISC) (15)
Waldert 2011[31] Floseal® (32) Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Floseal® in preventing lymphocele development after pelvic lymphadenectomy Floseal® may be effective in reducing the likelihood of lymphocele formation after pelvic lymphadenectomy. Data suggest that Floseal® is cost effective because it reduces the need for diagnostic TC scans, laparoscopic fenestration, and subsequent prolonged hospitalisation.
Without Floseal® (110)