ArticleSurgical neurology international2015
Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tisseel's impact on hemostasis for 2-3 and 4-6-level lumbar laminectomies.Surgical neurology international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTypically, fibrin sealants (FSs) and fibrin glues (FGs) are used to strengthen dural repairs during spinal surgery. In 2014, Epstein demonstrated that one FS/FG, Tisseel (Baxter International Inc., Westlake Village, CA, USA) equalized the average times to drain removal and length of stay (LOS) for patients with versus without excess bleeding (e.g. who did not receive Tisseel) undergoing multilevel laminectomies with 1-2 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF).[6].
methodsHere Tisseel was utilized to promote hemostasis for two populations; 39 patients undergoing average 4.4 level lumbar laminectomies with average 1.3 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF), and 48 patients undergoing average 4.0 level laminectomies alone (Lam). We compared the average operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for the LamF versus Lam groups.
resultsThe average operative times, EBL, postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements were all greater for LamF versus Lam patients; operative times (4.1 vs. 3.0 h), average EBL (192.3 vs. 147.9 cc), drainage (e.g. day 1; 199.6 vs. 167.4 cc; day 2; 172.9 vs. 63.9 cc), average LOS (4.6 vs. 2.5 days), and transfusion requirements (11 LamF patients; 18 Units [U] RBC versus 2 Lam patients; 3 U RBC).
conclusionsUtilizing Tisseel to facilitate hemostasis in LamF versus Lam still resulted in greater operative times, EBL, postoperative average drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for patients undergoing the noninstrumented fusions. Although Tisseel decreases back bleeding within the spinal canal, it does not reduce blood loss from LamF decorticated transverse processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.