4.6 Review

Meta-analysis of the use of surgical sealants for suture-hole bleeding in arterial anastomoses

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 103, Issue 13, Pages 1758-1767

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10308

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundSuture-hole bleeding in arterial anastomoses prolongs operating time and increases blood loss, particularly with the use of prosthetic grafts. Surgical sealants (such as fibrin) may be used as haemostatic adjuncts in vascular surgery. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that investigated the utility of surgical sealants in arterial-to-prosthetic graft anastomoses. MethodsA systematic review was undertaken of papers published until January 2015 on Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central and Cochrane databases that analysed the use of surgical sealants as haemostatic adjuncts after arterial anastomoses. RCTs were included, with study endpoints of time to haemostasis or haemostasis at 5min. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, mean difference in estimated blood loss and duration of surgery. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed, as well as funnel plot analysis for publication bias. ResultsA total of 2513 citations were reviewed; 19 RCTs comprising 1560 patients were ultimately included in the analysis. The majority of studies compared fibrin sealant with control haemostatic measures. Pooled analysis suggested that surgical sealants reduced the time to haemostasis (mean difference 24326 (95 per cent c.i. 18399 to 30253) s; P <0001), improved haemostasis at 5min (odds ratio 450, 95 per cent c.i. 259 to 781; P <0001), and were associated with less treatment failure, blood loss and shorter duration of surgery. ConclusionSurgical sealants appear to reduce suture-hole bleeding significantly in vascular prosthetic graft anastomoses compared with standard haemostatic measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available