ArticleCureus2025
Safety and Feasibility of Microporous Polysaccharide Hemosphere Absorbable Hemostat in Robotic Liver Resection: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous absorbable hemostats are often employed in liver surgery; however, the safety and efficacy of microporous polysaccharide hemosphere (MPH) absorbable hemostats in robotic liver resection (RLR) remain uncertain.
methodsThis study included 141 cases that underwent RLR at Kokura Memorial Hospital between September 2021 and May 2025. The included patients were divided into three groups: those without using any hemostat (non-hemostat (non-HS) group, n=47), those with the use of fibrin sealant patch (FSP) hemostat (TachoSil®; CSL Behring K.K., Tokyo, Japan) (FSP group, n=23), and those with the use of MPH hemostat (Arista™ AH Absorbable Hemostat; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, USA) (MPH group, n=71). The background characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups.
resultsThere were no differences in any background characteristics. The rate of anatomical hepatectomy in the FSP group was higher than in the MPH or non-HS groups (95.7% vs. 35.2% vs. 36.2%, p<0.001), and surgical blood loss was less in the MPH and non-HS groups than in the FSP group (11 mL vs. 0 mL vs. 34 mL, p<0.001). There were no conversions to open hepatectomy in the MPH group, no serious postoperative complications such as hemorrhage or bile leakage, and no mortality. There were no differences in the time for MPH application between the anterolateral and posterosuperior segment areas (35 sec vs. 36 sec, p=0.396), but a significant difference was observed between FSP and MPH application time in anatomical hepatectomy (382 sec vs. 36 sec, p<0.001).
conclusionsApplication of MPH is easy and effective for hemostasis without increasing the rate of bleeding complications after RLR. In addition, MPH may not raise the risk of bile leakage or intra-abdominal abscess. Thus, the use of MPH for RLR appears to be safe, effective, and time-efficient.
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.