ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2025
A randomized comparison of an adhesive gelatin sponge and a plain collagen sponge for hemostatic control during canine liver surgery.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomimetic interfacial water-regulated hybrid dual-layer hydrogel for wound healing, anti-adhesion and hemostasis post partial hepatectomy.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- A randomized comparison of an adhesive gelatin sponge and a plain collagen sponge for hemostatic control during canine liver surgery.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a modified surface gelatin sponge to a plain collagen sponge for hemostasis of parenchymal hepatic bleeding. STUDY
designProspective, randomized trial of two hemostatic agents. ANIMALS: A total of 45 dogs undergoing elective liver surgery were randomly allocated into two groups: 22 in the adhesive gelatin (AG) group and 23 in the plain collagen (PC) group. A total of 20 patients per group underwent liver biopsy to create a uniformly sized bleeding surface, with the remaining patients (AG = 2, PC = 3) undergoing liver lobectomy.
methodsEvaluation of hemostatic effectiveness and tissue adhesion of each sponge type was performed by the operating surgeon using structured scoring systems. Hemostatic parameters were primarily evaluated at the liver biopsy site to maintain homogeneity of bleeding surface size.
resultsFor the liver biopsy group (n = 40), 5 min after hemostatic sponge application, 10/20 dogs were bleeding in the PC group, compared to 2/20 in AG group (p = .0138). The PC bleeding was significantly higher than AG across the 3 to 6 min evaluation period (p < .001). When surgeons tested the adhesion of the sponge across the whole cohort (n = 45), AG scored 2 (of 3) against 1 for PC (p < .001). In group PC, 5/23 sponges dislodged during abdominal lavage and preparations for closure and had to be replaced due to recurrence of bleeding, compared with no AG sponges dislodging (p = .042). There were no further complications related to the use of either sponge.
conclusionIn the dogs with hepatic parenchymal incision, use of an adhesive gelatin sponge improved intraoperative attachment and haemostatic effectiveness, compared to a collagen sponge. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on our clinical experience in these cases, adhesive gelatin sponges could be considered an effective option when selecting a hemostatic agent for liver surgery in dogs.
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.