ArticleBMC surgery2020
Comparison of the efficacy of five standard topical hemostats: a study in porcine liver and spleen models of surgical bleeding.
Article in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Hemostatic Effectiveness of SURGICEL® Powder in Mild and Moderate Intraoperative Bleeding.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisTrial
- Early and Late Trocar-Site Outcomes After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Using a Standardized Fascial Closure Technique: a Prospective Observational Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Observational
- Article
- An architecturally rational hemostat for rapid stopping of massive bleeding on anticoagulation therapy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Trocar Port-Site Closure Using a Biological Plug Closure in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: a Prospective Study.Obesity surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral topical hemostats are available to help control surgical bleeding. Cutanplast is a highly absorbent and porous gelatin product that is available in Fast sponge and powder forms. This study investigated the hemostatic efficacy of Cutanplast Standard and Fast gelatin sponge and powder and Emosist oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) gauze in porcine liver and spleen surgical bleeding models.
methodsCutanplast Standard and Fast gelatin sponge and Emosist ORC gauze were tested in liver abrasion/incision, liver puncture and spleen incision/puncture injuries, and Cutanplast Standard and Fast gelatin powder products were tested in liver abrasion/incision injuries. There were 13 liver injury (five abrasion, five incision and three puncture) and six spleen injury (three puncture and three incision sites) sites per animal.
resultsRapid hemostasis (≤ 2-5 min) was achieved in the liver abrasion and incision models with all Cutanplast gelatin sponge and powder products and Emosist ORC gauze, except in the liver incision model, time to hemostasis was > 5 min with Cutanplast Standard gelatin powder and Emosist ORC gauze. Rapid hemostasis occurred with Cutanplast Fast gelatin sponge and Emosist ORC gauze in the liver puncture and spleen puncture and incision models. In the spleen incision model, Cutanplast Standard gelatin sponge had a time to hemostasis approaching 10 min.
conclusionCutanplast gelatin sponge and powder products and Emosist ORC gauze may be suitable for surgical applications involving parenchymal organ bleeding, but certain products may perform better than others, including Cutanplast gelatin powder in diffuse mild bleeding (such as liver abrasion), and Cutanplast Fast gelatin sponge and Emosist ORC gauze for splenic bleeding.
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.