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) |