ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Passive, Active, or Both-What Hemostats Do Surgeons Choose in the Real World, and Should We Rethink It?
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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.
- The quintessential high-risk profile: advanced management strategies for placenta accreta spectrum in patients with advanced maternal age and IVF conception.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates the association between the type of topical haemostatic agents used during surgery-categorized as active, passive, or a combination of both-and their relationship with intraoperative blood loss and bleeding-related postoperative outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted at Results: A total of 149 patients were included in the analysis: 51 treated with passive agents, 51 with active agents, and 47 with both. The mean age at admission was 55.9 years (SD ±16.3). General surgery was the most frequently represented specialty (24.8%), followed by spine (22.1%), neurosurgery (16.8%), and solid organ procedures (16.1%). The combination group showed the highest estimated blood loss (EBL) at 521.3 mL (SD ±1456.83; 95% CI: 93.5-949.0), compared to 390.7 mL (SD ±1004.81; CI: 108.1-673.3) in the active group and 301.5 mL (SD ±295.78; CI: 218.3-384.7) in the passive group. However, ANCOVA results showed no statistically significant difference in adjusted mean EBL between groups (p = 0.309). Notably, patients in the combination group experienced longer operative times, extended ICU stays, and higher mortality. Conclusion: Numerical trends suggest greater bleeding and more complex postoperative courses in patients treated with the combination of active and passive haemostats. The use of standardized, validated measures of intraoperative bleeding, paired with a strategic approach that anticipates and manages bleeding complications, may support improved clinical outcomes.
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.