SynthesisActa cirurgica brasileira2026
Hemostatic net in cervical and facial surgeries: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHematoma remains the most frequent complication of cervicofacial surgeries. The hemostatic net (HN), a transcutaneous suture designed to minimize dead space and bleeding, has shown promise, but pooled evidence of its safety and efficacy is limited. Thus, we conducted this study to clarify the safety profile and complication rates associated with the use of HN in cervical and facial surgeries.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed through August 2025. Eligible studies involved adults undergoing cervical and/or facial surgery with HN, with no restrictions on suture caliber or spacing between stitches. The primary outcome was hematoma incidence; secondary outcomes included skin necrosis, seroma, infection, persistent skin marks, patient-reported satisfaction, and other adverse events.
resultsEleven studies including 3,393 patients (2,748 HN; 645 controls) were analyzed. Single-arm meta-analysis of HN cases showed low pooled rates for hematoma (0.6%; 95% confidence interval 0.4-1.0; low certainty), skin necrosis (0.4%; 95% confidence interval 0.1-1.0; low certainty), seroma (1.5%; 95% confidence interval 0.6-4.0; low certainty), infection (0.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.0-25.5), and persistent skin marks (0.6%; 95% confidence interval 0.2-2.1). Comparative analyses showed no significant difference for hematoma (risk ratio = 0.15; 95% confidence interval 0.01-3.20; very low certainty) or seroma (risk ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.41-2.75; low certainty). Patient-reported satisfaction data were scarce and nonspecific.
conclusionThe HN is a safe technique with very low complication rates, though evidence of superiority over standard surgery remains inconclusive due to limited certainty of meta-analyzed data, heterogeneity of surgical procedures, and the paucity of patient-reported 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.