Free access

Research Article

25 January 2019

Using flowable gelatin in anterior cervical spine surgery in real-world practice: a retrospective cohort study

Authors: Yunchang Wu, Yiqing Wu, Gaurav Gangoli, Anh Bourcet, Walter Danker, III, Qianyi Gong, Huan Zhan, Wendong Chen, and Zheng Wang [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 8, Number 5

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0121

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: To assess the clinical and economic impact of flowable gelatin hemostatic matrix (FGHM) in anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS). Patients & methods: A total of 451 patients with performed ACSS were included to compare FGHM with conventional hemostatic methods for clinical and cost outcomes using propensity score matching method. Results: The comparisons of the matched 125 pairs observed that FGHM was associated with significantly lower blood transfusion volume (11.2 vs 36.3 ml; p = 0.039), shorter postsurgery hospital stay length (3.7 vs 4.7 days; p = 0.002), shorter operation time (103.5 vs 117.7 min; p = 0.004), lower drainage placement rate (51.2 vs 89.6%; p < 0.001) and also lower total hospital costs (median ¥64,717 vs ¥65,064; p = 0.035). Conclusion: Use of FGHM in ACSS improved perioperative outcomes without increasing hospital costs.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

References

1.

Laratta JL, Shillingford JN, Saifi C et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of single-level, multilevel, and hybrid procedures. Global Spine J. 8(1), 78–83 (2018).

2.

Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Sztern B. An overview of blood-sparing techniques used in spine surgery during the perioperative period. Eur. Spine J. 13(Suppl. 1), s18–s27 (2004).

3.

Shander A. Financial and clinical outcomes associated with surgical bleeding complications. Surgery 142(4S), S20–S26 (2007).

4.

Corral M, Ferko N, Hollmann S et al. Health and economic outcomes associated with uncontrolled surgical bleeding: a retrospective analysis of the Premier Perspectives Database. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 7, 409–421 (2015).

5.

Emilia M, Luca S, Francesca B et al. Topical hemostatic agents in surgical practice. Transfus. Apher. Sci. 45(3), 305–311 (2011).

6.

Sewlikar S, Rillai R, Mahajan N, Desai A. Bleeding scenarios in spine surgeries: role for tropical hemostatic agents. J. Spinal Surg. 2(1), 13–16 (2015).

7.

Gazzeri R, De Bonis C, Galarza M. Use of a thrombin–gelatin hemostatic matrix (SURGIFLO^®) in spinal surgery. Surg. Technol. Int. 25, 280–285 (2014).

8.

Comadoll JL, Comadoll S, Hutchcraft A et al. Comparison of hemostatic matrix and standard hemostasis in patients undergoing primary TKA. Orthopedics 35(6), e785–e793 (2012).

9.

Tackett SM, Sugarman R, Kreuwel HT et al. Hospital economic impact from hemostatic matrix usage in cardiac surgery. J. Med. Econ. 17(9), 670–676 (2014).

10.

Echave M, Oyagüez I, Casado MA. Use of Floseal^®, a human gelatine–thrombin matrix sealant, in surgery: a systematic review. BMC Surg. 14(1), 111 (2014).

11.

Helenius I, Keskinen H, Syvanen J et al. Gelatine matrix with human thrombin decreases blood loss in adolescents undergoing posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Joint J. 98(3), 395–401 (2016).

12.

Renkens KL Jr, Payner TD, Leipzig TJ et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating a new hemostatic agent for spinal surgery. Spine 26(15), 1645–1650 (2001).

13.

Sileshi B, Achneck HE, Lawson JH. Management of surgical hemostasis: topical agents. Vascular 16(1 Suppl.), 22–28 (2008).

14.

Schonauer C, Tessitore E, Barbagallo G et al. The use of local agents: bone wax, gelatin, collagen, oxidized cellulose. Eur. Spine J. 13(Suppl. 1), S89–S96 (2004).

15.

Alander DH, Stauffer ES. Gelfoam-induced acute quadriparesis after cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 20(8), 970–971 (1995).

16.

Cappabianca P, Esposito F, Esposito I et al. Use of a thrombin–gelatin haemostatic matrix in endoscopic endonasal extended approaches: technical note. Acat. Neurochir. 151, 69–77 (2009).

17.

Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfier A. Safety biocompatibility of gelatin hemostatic matrix (Floseal and SURGIFLO^®) in neurosurgical procedures. Surg. Tech. Int. 22, 49–54 (2012).

18.

Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M, Alfieri A, Giordano M. Hemostatic matrix sealant in neurosurgery: a clinical and imaging study. Acta Neurochir. 153(1), 148–155 (2011).

19.

Landi A, Gregori F, Marotta N, Delfini R. 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. 77(2), 139–143 (2016).

20.

Price JS, Tackett S, Patel V. Observational evaluation of outcomes and resource utilization from hemostatic matrices in spine surgery. J. Med. Economics 18(10), 777–786 (2015).

21.

Despotis GJ, Joist JH, Goodnough LT. Monitoring of hemostasis in cardiac surgical patients: impact of point-of-care testing on blood loss and transfusion outcomes. Clin. Chem. 43(9), 1684–1696 (1997).

22.

Seraph V, Lerch C, Walochnik N et al. Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. 13, 425–431 (2004).

23.

Eva YW, Cheung WY, Ng KF et al. Reducing perioperative blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion in patients undergoing major spine surgery. JBJS 93(13), 1268–1277 (2011).

24.

Wimmer C, Gluch H, Franzreb M et al. Predisposing factors for infection in spine surgery: a survey of 850 spinal procedures. Clin. Spine Surg. 11(2), 124–128 (1998).

|