Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are introduced to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula by some surgeons. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registers and the following biomedical databases: the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 12 April 2018), Embase (1980 to 12 April 2018), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 12 April 2018), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 12 April 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies involving 1462 participants in the review.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomyWe included seven studies involving 860 participants: 428 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 432 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 19.3%; control 20.1%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; 755 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may also lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.3% versus 0.5%; Peto OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; 804 participants; six studies; low-quality evidence), or overall postoperative morbidity (28.5% versus 23.2%; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 646 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (2.0% versus 3.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.71; 376 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in length of hospital stay between the groups (12.1 days versus 11.4 days; MD 0.32 days, 95% CI -1.06 to 1.70; 755 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomyWe included three studies involving 251 participants: 115 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 136 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (1.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.06; 57 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.1% versus 0.7%; Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.76; 251 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (12.8 days versus 14.8 days; MD -1.58 days, 95% CI -3.96 to 0.81; 181 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (33.7% versus 34.7%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.45; 181 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (7.6% versus 9.2%; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.11; 181 participants; two studies, very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomyWe included two studies involving 351 participants: 188 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (8.4% versus 6.1%; Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (17.0 days versus 16.5 days; MD 0.58 days, 95% CI -5.74 to 6.89; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (32.0% versus 27.6%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (13.6% versus 16.0%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study: more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report postoperative pancreatic fistula, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants may have little or no effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The effects of fibrin sealants on the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula are uncertain in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease

BACKGROUND

Pilonidal sinus disease is a common condition that mainly affects young adults. This condition can cause significant pain and impairment of normal activities. No consensus currently exists on the optimum treatment for pilonidal sinus and current therapies have various advantages and disadvantages. Fibrin glue has emerged as a potential treatment as both monotherapy and an adjunct to surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fibrin glue alone or in combination with surgery compared with surgery alone in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase and CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and conference proceedings for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies involving participants of all ages and studies conducted in any setting. We considered studies involving people with both new and recurrent pilonidal sinus. We included studies which evaluated fibrin glue monotherapy or as an adjunct to surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs with 253 participants, all were at risk of bias. One unpublished study evaluated fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure, two studies evaluated fibrin glue as an adjunct to Limberg flap and one study evaluated fibrin glue as an adjunct to Karydakis flap.For fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure, there were no data available for the primary outcomes of time to healing and adverse events. There was low-quality evidence of less pain on day one after the procedure with fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.03 to -0.97) (evidence downgraded twice for risk of performance and detection bias). Fibrin glue may reduce the time taken to return to normal activities compared with Bascom's procedure (mean time 42 days with surgery and 7 days with glue, MD -34.80 days, 95% CI -66.82 days to -2.78 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded as above and for imprecision).Fibrin glue as an adjunct to the Limberg flap may reduce the healing time from 22 to 8 days compared with the Limberg flap alone (MD -13.95 days, 95% CI -16.76 days to -11.14 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and imprecision). It is uncertain whether use of fibrin glue affects the incidence of postoperative seroma (an adverse event) (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.61; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and imprecision). There was low-quality evidence that fibrin glue, as an adjunct to Limberg flap, may reduce postoperative pain (median 2 versus 4; P < 0.001) and time to return to normal activities (median 8 days versus 17 days; P < 0.001). The addition of fibrin glue to the Limberg flap may reduce the length of hospital stay (MD -1.69 days, 95% CI -2.08 days to -1.29 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and for unexplained heterogeneity).A single RCT evaluating fibrin glue as an adjunct to the Karydakis flap did not report data for the primary outcome of time to healing. It is uncertain whether fibrin glue with the Karydakis flap affects the incidence of postoperative seroma (adverse event) (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and for imprecision). Fibrin glue as an adjunct to Karydakis flap may reduce length of stay but this is highly uncertain (mean 2 days versus 3.7 days; P < 0.001, low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is uncertain regarding any benefits associated with fibrin glue either as monotherapy or as an adjunct to surgery for people with pilonidal sinus disease. We identified only four RCTs and each was small and at risk of bias resulting in very low-quality evidence for the primary outcomes of time to healing and adverse events. Future studies should enrol many more participants, ensure adequate randomisation and blinding, whilst measuring clinically relevant outcomes.