Literature DB >> 23883149

Do fibrin sealants impact negative outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy?

Jason Cohen1, Gautam Jayram, Jeffrey K Mullins, Mark W Ball, Mohamad E Allaf.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Contemporary rates of postoperative hemorrhage after partial nephrectomy (PN) are low. Commercially available hemostatic agents are commonly used during this surgery to reduce this risk despite a paucity of data supporting the practice. We assessed the impact of fibrin sealant hemostatic agents, a costly addition to surgeries, during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2011, 114 consecutive patients underwent RAPN by a single surgeon (MEA). Evicel fibrin sealant was used in the first 74 patients during renorraphy. The last 40 patients had renorraphy performed without the use of any hemostatic agents. Clinicopathologic, operative, and complication data were compared between groups. Multivariate and univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to test the association between the use of fibrin sealants and operative outcomes.
RESULTS: Patient demographic data and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups. The use of fibrin sealant did not increase operative time (166.3 vs 176.1 minutes, P=0.28), warm ischemia time (WIT) (14.4 vs 16.1 minutes, P=0.18), or length of hospital stay (2.6 vs 2.4 days, P=0.35). The omission of these agents did not increase estimated blood loss (116.6 vs 176.1 mL, P=0.8) or postoperative blood transfusion (0% vs 2.5%, P=0.17). Univariate analysis demonstrated no association between use of fibrin sealants and increased complications (P>0.05). Multivariable logistic regression showed no statistically significant predictive value of omission of hemostatic agents for perioperative outcomes (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Perioperative hemorrhage and other major complications after contemporary RAPN are rare in experienced hands. In our study, the use of fibrin sealants during RAPN does not decrease the rate of complications, blood loss, or hospital stay. Furthermore, no impact is seen on operative time, WIT, or other negative outcomes. Omitting these agents during RAPN could be a safe, effective, cost-saving measure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23883149     DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  4 in total

1.  Current Status of Hemostatic Agents and Sealants in Urologic Surgical Practice.

Authors:  Sashi S Kommu; Robert McArthur; Amr M Emara; Utsav D Reddy; Christopher J Anderson; Neil J Barber; Raj A Persad; Christopher G Eden
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

2.  The use of hemostatic agents does not prevent hemorrhagic complications of robotic partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Benoit Peyronnet; Emmanuel Oger; Zineddine Khene; Gregory Verhoest; Romain Mathieu; Mathieu Roumiguié; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Benjamin Pradere; Alexandra Masson-Lecomte; Christophe Vaessen; Hervé Baumert; Jean-Christophe Bernhard; Nicolas Doumerc; Stéphane Droupy; Franck Bruyere; Alexandre De La Taille; Morgan Roupret; Karim Bensalah
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  The use of Haemostatic Agents does not impact the rate of hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for renal masses.

Authors:  Yasmin Abu-Ghanem; Zohar Dotan; Issac Kaver; Dorit E Zilberman; Jacob Ramon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  The role of hemostatic agents in preventing complications in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

Authors:  Diego M Carrion; Sergio Alonso Y Gregorio; Juan Gómez Rivas; Alfredo Aguilera Bazán; Jesús Díez Sebastián; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-10-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.