ArticlePloS one2022
Safety and performance of surgical adhesives.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant derived tannic acid-based tissue adhesives: From mechanism to advanced design.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Review
- Characterization of a Novel POx-Based Adhesive Powder for Obliterating Dead Spaces After Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correction: Safety and performance of surgical adhesives.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTissue adhesives are an alternative to conventional surgical sutures to reduce the time and cost of wound closure and to improve patient comfort. The use of tissue adhesives does not require any subsequent intervention and significantly lowers the volume and rate of blood loss, and reduces the need for transfusions during and after surgery. However, based on their formulation, tissue adhesives' safety profile and functional properties may differ. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the basic safety and performance of NE'X Glue® Surgical Sealant, BioGlue® Surgical Sealant, and PREVELEAKTM Surgical Sealant in vitro.
methodsThe basic safety of commercially available tissue adhesives was evaluated using MEM elution assay according to ISO 10993-5 and endotoxin level according to 85. USP. The in vitro performance was evaluated using lap-shear by tension loading test, burst strength test, degradation, and swelling assays.
resultsNE'X Glue®, BioGlue®, and PREVELEAKTM did not cause cytotoxicity in MEM elution assay. All surgical adhesives are below the general limit of endotoxin contamination of 20 EU/device. NE'X Glue® and BioGlue® showed the highest and comparable strength properties in lap shear and burst strength tests compared to PREVELEAKTM. NE'X Glue® and PREVELEAKTM are characterized by lower degradation potential than BioGlue®. PREVELEAKTM is characterized by the highest swelling when compared to NE'X Glue® and BioGlue®.
conclusionsNE'X Glue® is most versatile in terms of functional properties while maintaining the same safety profile as BioGlue® and PREVELEAKTM.
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.