Trial reportOrthopaedic surgery2025
Effects of Fluid Gelatin for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Undergoing Lumbar Endoscopic Bilateral Decompression: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), prolonged compression of the epidural venous plexus heightens the risk of bleeding and hematoma during minimally invasive surgery. While absorbable fluid gelatin, an animal protein-based hemostatic agent, is available, its effectiveness in lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) remains debated. Our research aims to conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness and safety of this hemostatic material in patients undergoing LE-ULBD for LSS.
methodsFrom October 2023 to July 2024, a total of 90 patients with LSS who underwent LE-ULBD were enrolled in this study. The 90 patients were randomly divided into two groups: fluid gelatin group (45 cases, using fluid gelatin) and null-fluid gelatin group (45 cases, not using fluid gelatin). Primary outcomes included the success rate of achieving hemostasis within 3 min and symptomatic postoperative epidural hematoma (SPEH). Secondary outcomes encompassed surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative blood loss, length of stay, and complications. Independent sample t tests were used to compare continuous data. Chi-squared tests and Fisher's exact probability tests were used to analyze the categorical data.
resultsThe success rate of achieving hemostasis within 3 min (p < 0.05) was significantly higher in fluid gelatin group compared to that in the null-fluid gelatin group, and perioperative blood loss (p < 0.05) and surgical time (p < 0.05) were notably lower in the fluid gelatin group. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, and complications, such as SPEH, allergy, and thrombus.
conclusionIn patients with LSS undergoing LE-ULBD surgery, using fluid gelatin can achieve rapid intraoperative hemostasis, shorten surgical time, and reduce perioperative blood loss without causing complications. Therefore, the conventional use of fluid gelatin in LE-ULBD surgery is an effective and safe strategy.
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.