Does prophylactic use of topical gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant affect postoperative drainage volume and hematoma formation following microendoscopic spine surgery? A randomized controlled trial

Usefulness and Safety of Gelatin-Thrombin Matrix Sealants in Minimally Invasive Microscopic Discectomy

Objective  This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness and safety of gelatin-thrombin matrix sealants (GTMSs) in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy, a surgical procedure commonly used to treat lumbar disc herniation. Materials and Methods  Out of 484 patients who underwent minimally invasive microscopic discectomy between April 2018 and December 2022, 35 patients with a history of surgery at the same level were excluded, resulting in a total of 449 patients included in the study. Among them, 316 patients were treated using GTMS, whereas 133 were treated using collagen-based absorbable local hemostatic agents. Patient characteristics, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, intraoperative dural injury, and incidence of postoperative epidural hematoma were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results  No significant differences in patient demographics were observed between the two groups, except for activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time. Although there were no significant differences in the mean surgical time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups, they tended to be shorter and less in the GTMS group (56.3 ± 20.2 vs. 58.2 ± 20.4 minutes [ p  = 0.36] and 10.0 ± 15.4 vs. 11.8 ± 8.3 g [ p  = 0.20]). The volume of postoperative drainage was significantly lower in the GTMS group than that in the comparison group (35.3 ± 21.8 vs. 49.5 ± 34.1 g [ p  < 0.01]). There was a trend indicating a difference in the number of intraoperative dural injuries and the need for reoperation due to postoperative epidural hematoma (2 vs. 3 ± 20.4 minutes [ p  = 0.21] and 1 vs. 2 [ p  = 0.16]). Conclusion  The use of a GTMS in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy appears to be beneficial in reducing postoperative drainage volume. It has also been shown that it may improve clinical outcomes such as intraoperative dural injury and postoperative epidural hematoma. Furthermore, further consideration of the medical economic impact is required.

Real-World Effectiveness of Gelatin-Thrombin Matrix Sealant on Blood Loss in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion: An Interrupted Time Series Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study with interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the clinical effectiveness of gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant (GTMS) on blood loss reduction after adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The real-world effectiveness of GTMS on blood loss reduction in AIS surgery has not been determined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients receiving AIS surgery were retrospectively collected during a period before GTMS approval at our institution (January 22, 2010-January 21, 2015) as well as during a postintroduction period (January 22, 2015-January 22, 2020). The primary outcomes were intraoperative blood loss, drain output over 24 hours, and total blood loss (intraoperative blood loss + drain output over 24 h). Interrupted time series analysis using a segmented linear regression model was used to estimate the effect of GTMS on blood loss reduction.

RESULTS

A total of 179 AIS patients [mean age (range): 15.4 (11-30) yr; 159 females and 20 males; 63 preintroduction patients and 116 postintroduction patients] were included. After its introduction, GTMS was used in 40% of cases. Interrupted time series analysis revealed changes of -340 mL (95% CI: -649 to -31, P = 0.03) for intraoperative blood loss, -35 mL (95% CI: -124 to 55, P = 0.44) for drain output over 24 hours, and -375 mL (95% CI: -698 to -51, P = 0.02) for total blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of GTMS was significantly associated with reduced intraoperative and total blood loss in AIS surgery. GTMS use as needed is recommended to control intraoperative bleeding in the setting of AIS surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Venous thromboembolism chemical prophylaxis after skull base surgery

PURPOSE

There is no guidance surrounding postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis using pharmacological agents (chemoprophylaxis) in patients undergoing skull base surgery. The aim of this study was to compare VTE and intracranial haematoma rates after skull base surgery in patients treated with/without chemoprophylaxis.

METHODS

Review of prospective quaternary centre database including adults undergoing first-time skull base surgery (2009-2020). VTE was defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) within 6 months of surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors predictive of postoperative intracranial haematoma/VTE. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used in group comparisons.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred fifty-one patients were included with a median age of 52 years (range 16-89 years) and female predominance (62%). Postoperative chemoprophylaxis was used in 81% of patients at a median of 1 day postoperatively. There were 12 VTE events (1.2%), and the use of chemoprophylaxis did not negate the risk of VTE entirely (p > 0.99) and was highest on/after postoperative day 6 (9/12 VTE events). There were 18 intracranial haematomas (0.8%), and after PSM, chemoprophylaxis did not significantly increase the risk of an intracranial haematoma (p > 0.99). Patients administered chemoprophylaxis from postoperative days 1 and 2 had similar rates of intracranial haematomas (p = 0.60) and VTE (p = 0.60), affirmed in PSM.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative chemoprophylaxis represents a relatively safe strategy in patients undergoing skull base surgery. We advocate a personalised approach to chemoprophylaxis and recommend it on postoperative days 1 or 2 when indicated.

Effectiveness of gelatin matrix with human thrombin for reducing blood loss in palliative decompressive surgery with posterior spinal fusion for metastatic spinal tumors

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the effect of gelatin matrix with human thrombin (GMHT) on blood loss and survival time in patients with metastatic spinal tumors treated with palliative decompression surgery with posterior spinal fusion.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 67 consecutive patients with metastatic spinal tumors who underwent palliative decompression surgery with posterior spinal fusion. We compared patients in whom GMHT was not used during surgery with those in whom GMHT was used. The following baseline characteristics were evaluated: age, height, weight, sex, metastatic tumor diagnosis, medical history, use of antiplatelet drug, use of anticoagulant drug, use of NSAIDs, smoking, preoperative PLT value, preoperative APTT, preoperative PT-INR, Karnofsky Performance Status score, Charlson comorbidities index score, the percentage of patients who received perioperative chemotherapy, main tumor level, Frankel category, revised Tokuhashi score, spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS), number of fusion segments, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage blood loss, red blood cell transfusion, hemoglobin level, total protein (TP), albumin values, total blood loss (TBL), hidden blood loss, postoperative bed rest and postoperative survival time. Perioperative complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Age, height, weight, sex, metastatic tumor diagnosis, medical history, use of antiplatelet drug, use of anticoagulant drug, use of NSAIDs, smoking, preoperative PLT value, preoperative APTT, preoperative PT-INR, CCI score, main level of tumors, SINS score, preoperative Tokuhashi score and number of fusion segments did not differ significantly between the two groups. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage blood loss, and TBL were significantly decreased in the group with GMHT than in the group without GMHT. The total number of perioperative complications was significantly lesser in the group with GMHT than in the group without GMHT. The median postoperative survival time was significantly longer in the GMHT group than in the group without GMHT.

CONCLUSION

GMHT should be considered a valid option for the treatment of patients with metastatic spinal tumors with a short life expectancy.

Predictors for hemostatic thrombin-gelatin matrix usage in spine surgery: a multicenter observational study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Thrombin-gelatin matrix (TGM) is a rapid and potent hemostatic agent, but it has some limitations, including the cost and its preparation time. The purpose of this study was to investigate the current trend in the use of TGM and to identify the predictors for TGM usage in order to ensure its proper use and optimized resource allocation.

METHODS

A total of 5520 patients who underwent spine surgery in a multicenter study group within a year were included in the study. The demographic factors and the surgical factors including spinal levels operated, emergency surgery, reoperation, approach, durotomy, instrumented fixation, interbody fusion, osteotomy, and microendoscopy-assistance were investigated. TGM usage and whether it was routine or unplanned use for uncontrolled bleeding were also checked. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for unplanned use of TGM.

RESULTS

Intraoperative TGM was used in 1934 cases (35.0%), among which 714 were unplanned (12.9%). Predictors of unplanned TGM use were female gender (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.43, p = 0.03), ASA grade ≥ 2 (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04-1.72, p = 0.02), cervical spine (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.24-1.94, p < 0.001), tumor (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.34-3.03, p < 0.001), posterior approach (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.26-2.18, p < 0.001), durotomy (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.24-2.20, p < 0.001), instrumentation (OR: 1.30, 1.03-1.63, p = 0.02), osteotomy (OR: 5.00, 2.76-9.05, p < 0.001), and microendoscopy (OR: 2.24, 1.84-2.73, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the predictors for unplanned TGM use have been previously reported as risk factors for intraoperative massive hemorrhaging and blood transfusion. However, other newly revealed factors can be predictors of bleeding that is technically challenging to control. While routine usage of TGM in these cases will require further justification, these novel findings are valuable for implementing preoperative precautions and optimizing resource allocation.

Effectiveness of a Gelatin-Thrombin Matrix Sealant (Floseal®) for Reducing Blood Loss During Microendoscopic Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of a gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant (GTMS) during microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) for lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS).

METHODS

This study included 158 LSCS cases on hemostasis-affecting medication who underwent MEL by a single surgeon between September 2016 and August 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether GTMS was used (37 cases, Group A) or not (121 cases, Group B). Perioperative data related to bleeding or postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (PSEH) was investigated. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score for low back pain.

RESULTS

The mean intraoperative blood loss per level was greater in Group A (26.0 ± 20.3 g) than in Group B (13.6 ± 9.0 g), whereas the postoperative drainage volume was smaller in Group A (79.1 ± 42.5 g) than in Group B (97.3 ± 55.6 g). No revision surgeries for PSEH were required in Group A, while 2 (1.7%) revisions were required in Group B (P = .957). The median JOA score improved significantly from the preoperative period to 1-year postoperatively in both Group A and B (total score, 16.0-23.5 and 17.0-25.0 points, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of GTMS during MEL for LSCS may be associated with a reduction in postoperative drainage volume. The revision rate for PSEH was not affected significantly by the use of GTMS. Clinical outcomes (represented by the JOA score) were significantly improved after the surgery, regardless of GTMS use during MEL.