Hemorrhage control of fluid gelatin SurgifloTM versus gelatin sponge in lumbar spine
fusion surgery

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2209

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage control has been an important issue in spine surgery. The widely used gelatin sponge is limited by its long-time bleeding control and poor hemorrhage control. Therefore, new techniques are needed to control bleeding in spine surgery.

OBJRCTIVE: To compare the hemostatic effect of fluid gelatin Surgiflo^TM with absorbable gelatin sponge in single level posterior lumbar fusion surgery.

METHODS: Ninety-eight patients consisting of 52 males and 46 females, aged 54.32 years who received treatment between September 2017 and December 2017 in Xijing Hospital of The Fourth Military Medical University were included in this study. All patients underwent single-level L_4/5 lumbar fusion. Among them, 48 patients received intraoperative hemostasis with fluid gelatin SurgifloTM and 50 patients received intraoperative hemostasis with conventional gelatin sponge. Intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume, success rate of hemostasis in 3 minutes and changes of hemoglobin levels in perioperative period were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The operation time in the Surgiflo^TMgroup was significantly shorter than that in the gelatin sponge group [(105±26) vs. (118±32) min, P < 0.05]. The amount of intraoperative blood loss and total amount of drainage were (156±57) mL and (106±42) mL in the Surgiflo^TMgroup which were significantly lower than those in the gelatin sponge group [(204±62) mL, (148±35) mL, P < 0.05]. The success rate of hemostasis within 3 minutes in the Surgiflo^TM group was significantly higher than that in the gelatin sponge group (94% vs. 80%, P < 0.05). The change in hemoglobin level during the perioperative period relative to pre-surgery level was significantly higher in the Surgiflo^TM group was significantly lower than that in the gelatin sponge group [(12.3±3.6) vs. (22.8±4.3) g/L, P < 0.05]. No complications such as anaphylaxis, immune rejection, or delayed hematoma occurred in both groups. These results suggest that fluid gelatin Surgiflo^TM can significantly reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume in single-level lumbar fusion surgery and exhibit better hemostatic effects.

Key words: spine surgery, hemorrhage control, fluid gelatin Surgiflo^TM, gelatin sponge, lumbar fusion surgery, operation time, adverse effect, bleeding

CLC Number:

Qin Wenpin, Yang Yujie, Zhao Laihe, Shi Xiaowei, Lu Lei, Yang Hongxu, Huang Jinghui. Hemorrhage control of fluid gelatin Surgiflo^TM versus gelatin sponge in lumbar spine fusion surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2020, 24(4): 561-565.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1] ASIL K, YALDIZ C.Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization.Medicine (Baltimore).2016;95(17):e3235.
[2] LURIE J, TOMKINS-LANE C.Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ.2016;352:h6234.
[3] YAMAN O, OZDEMIR N, DAGLI AT, et al.A Comparison of Bilateral Decompression via Unilateral Approach and Classic Laminectomy in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A retrospective Clinical Study.Turk Neurosurg.2015;25(2):239-245.
[4] ANTONIADIS A, ULRICH NH, SCHMID S, et al.Decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis in octogenarians; a single center experience of 121 consecutive patients.Br J Neurosurg. 2017;31(1):67-71.
[5] BALABAUD L, PITEL S, CAUX I, et al.Lumbar spine surgery in patients 80 years of age or older: morbidity and mortality.Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol.2015;25 S1:S205-212.
[6] CLOYD JM, ACOSTA FL JR, AMES CP.Complications and outcomes of lumbar spine surgery in elderly people: a review of the literature.J Am Geriatr Soc.2008;56(7):1318-1327.
[7] ZOU H, LI Z, SHENG H, et al.Intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and recovery in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery.BMC Surg.2015;15:76.
[8] JANCZAK D, RUCIŃSKI A, RUCIŃSKA Z, et al.Modern topical hemostatic agents - a breakthrough in vascular surgery.Polim Med. 2013;43(4):221-225.
[9] LANDI A, GREGORI F, MAROTTA N, et al.Efficacy, Security, and Manageability of Gelified Hemostatic Matrix in Bleeding Control during Thoracic and Lumbar Spine Surgery: FloSeal versus Surgiflo.J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg.2016;77(2):139-143.
[10] MOBBS RJ, PHAN K, MALHAM G, et al.Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg.2015;1(1):2-18.
[11] NUTTALL GA, HORLOCKER TT, SANTRACH PJ, et al.Predictors of blood transfusions in spinal instrumentation and fusion surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2000;25(5):596-601.
[12] WILLNER D, SPENNATI V, STOHL S, et al.Spine Surgery and Blood Loss: Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence.Anesth Analg. 2016;123(5):1307-1315.
[13] MELANCIA JL, FRANCISCO AF, ANTUNES JL.Spinal stenosis. Handb Clin Neurol.2014;119:541-549.
[14] NOURI A,TETREAULT L, SINGH A, et al.Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2015;40(12):E675-693.
[15] LAMARTINA C, CASERO G.Bleeding control in pedicle subtraction osteotomy.Eur Spine J. 2011;20(12):2284-2285.
[16] ZOU H, LI Z, SHENG H, et al.Intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and recovery in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. BMC Surg.2015;15:76.
[17] WU J, JIN Y, ZHANG J, et al.Hemostatic techniques following multilevel posterior lumbar spine surgery: a randomized control trial. J Spinal Disord Tech.2014;27(8):442-446.
[18] XU D, REN Z, CHEN X, et al.A randomized controlled trial on effects of different hemostatic sponges in posterior spinal fusion surgeries. BMC Surg.2016;16(1):80.
[19] XU D, ZHUANG Q, LI Z, et al.A randomized controlled trial on the effects of collagen sponge and topical tranexamic acid in posterior spinal fusion surgeries.J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):166.
[20] BANNISTER M, AH-SEE K.Safety of the haemostatic agent Surgiflo® in excisions of the submandibular gland: our experience in 17 cases.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2014;52(9):e134-135.
[21] DHANOTA H, PINKAS D, JOSSERAND D, et al.Use of a Topical Thrombin-Based Hemostatic Agent in Shoulder Arthroplasty.Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ).2015;44(8):E262-267.
[22] GAZZERI R, GALARZA M, CONTI C, et al.Incidence of thromboembolic events after use of gelatin-thrombin-based hemostatic matrix during intracranial tumor surgery.Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41(1):303-310.
[23] OBERMAIR H, JANDA M, OBERMAIR A.Real-world surgical outcomes of a gelatin-hemostatic matrix in women requiring a hysterectomy: a matched case-control study.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(9):1008-1014.
[24] WOODWORTH BA, CHANDRA RK, LEBENGER JD, et al.A gelatin-thrombin matrix for hemostasis after endoscopic sinus surgery.Am J Otolaryngol.2009;30(1):49-53.
[25] LANDI A, GREGORI F, MAROTTA N, et al.Efficacy, Security, and Manageability of Gelified Hemostatic Matrix in Bleeding Control during Thoracic and Lumbar Spine Surgery: FloSeal versus Surgiflo.J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg.2016;77(2):139-143.
[26] PRICE JS, TACKETT S, PATEL V.Observational evaluation of outcomes and resource utilization from hemostatic matrices in spine surgery.J Med Econ.2015;18(10):777-786.
[27] SOFFIN EM, VAISHNAV AS, WETMORE D, et al.Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Spine Surgery: Initial Experience.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;44(9): E561-E570.doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002905.
[28] WAINWRIGHT TW, IMMINS T, MIDDLETON RG. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and its applicability for major spine surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2016;30(1):91-102.
[29] LUHMANN SJ, SUCATO DJ, BACHARIER L, et al.Intraoperative anaphylaxis secondary to intraosseous gelatin administration.J Pediatr Orthop.2013;33(5):e58-60.