Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Hemostatic matrix sealant in neurosurgery: a clinical and imaging study

  • Clinical Article
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Object

The aim of this study was to investigate prospectively the efficacy and safety of Floseal hemostatic matrix.

Methods

A total of 214 patients (87 males, 127 females; mean age 56.2 years) undergoing cranial (71.4%), craniospinal (0.9%), and spinal (27.5%) procedures with the use of gelatin thrombin hemostatic matrix (Floseal) were included in this prospective study. The indications for its use, surgical techniques, time to bleeding control, and associated complications were recorded.

Results

Effective hemostasis, defined as cessation of bleeding, was achieved no later than 3 min after topical agent application in all patients except in 11 cases, in which the hemostatic application was repeated. Rebleeding was disclosed in four patients 1 day after initial surgery. In one case, an intracerebral abscess developed after a malignant glioma removal. No other patient developed allergic reactions or local or systemic complications associated with the hemostatic sealant.

Conclusion

In this study, matrix hemostatic sealant helped to control operative bleeding in cranial and spinal surgery, reducing damage to the surrounding healthy nervous tissue while shortening surgical timing. Other than safe, the immediate hemostatic effect is an advantage in the settings of refractory bleeding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bak JB, Singh A, Shekarriz B (2004) Use of gelatin matrix thrombin tissue sealant as an effective hemostatic agent during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 171(2 Pt 1):780–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellegala DB, Maartens NF, Laws ER Jr (2002) Use of FloSeal hemostatic sealant in transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: technical note. Neurosurgery 51(2):513–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fukamachi A, Koizumi H, Nukui H (1985) Postoperative intracerebral hemorrhages: a survey of computed tomographic findings after 1,074 intracranial operations. Surg Neurol 23:575–580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M, Alfieri A, Esposito S (2009) Minimal craniotomy and matrix hemostatic sealant for the treatment of spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage. J Neurosurg 110(5):939–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gerlach R, Raabe A, Scharrer I, Meixensberger J, Seifert V (2004) Post-operative hematoma after surgery for intracranial meningiomas: causes, avoidable risk factors and clinical outcome. Neurol Res 26:61–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalfas IH, Little JR (1988) Postoperative hemorrhage: a survey of 4,992 intracranial procedures. Neurosurgery 23:343–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Korinek AM (1997) Risk factors for neurosurgical site infections after craniotomy: a prospective multicenter study of 2944 patients. The French Study Group of Neurosurgical Infections, the SEHP, and the C-CLIN Paris-Nord. Service Epidémiologie Hygiène et Prévention. Neurosurgery 41(5):1073–1079

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Morgenstern LB, Frankowski RF, Shedden P, Pasteur W, Grotta JC (1998) Surgical Treatment for Intracerebral Hemorrhage (STICH): a single-center, randomized clinical trial. Neurology 51:1359–1363

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morgenstern LB, Demchuk AM, Kim DH (2001) Rebleeding leads to poor outcome in ultra-early craniotomy for intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 56:1294–1299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Narotam PK, Reddy K, Fewer D, Qiao F, Nathoo N (2007) Collagen matrix duraplasty for cranial and spinal surgery: a clinical and imaging study. J Neurosurg 106(1):45–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Oz MC, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Badduke BR, Hill JD, Flannery MR, Palumbo R et al (2000) Controlled clinical trial of a novel hemostatic agent in cardiac surgery. The Fusion Matrix Study Group. Ann Thorac Surg 69(5):1376–1382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Payner T, Vega F, Taw J, Polidoro DP, Soria ML, Reich CJ (2003) Floseal matrix hemostatic sealant. Safety, biocompatibility and biodegradation brain implantation study in rats. Fusion Medical Technologies, Inc. Study Number P01-050. Report Date 04-2003

  13. Palmer JD, Sparrow OC, Iannotti F (1994) Postoperative hematoma: a 5-year survey and identification of avoidable risk factors. Neurosurgery 35:1061–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Renkens KL Jr, Payner T, Leipzig TJ, Feuer H, Morone M, Koers J et al (2001) Multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating a new hemostatic agent in spinal surgery. Spine 26:1645–1650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reuthebuch O, Lachat ML, Vogt P, Schurr U, Turina M (2000) FloSeal: a new hemostyptic agent in peripheral vascular surgery. Vasa 29(3):204–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Gazzeri.

Additional information

Comment

This is an interesting paper summarizing the large surgical experience of the authors on the use of Floseal as a hemostatic agent in various cranial and spinal neurosurgical procedures. The conclusions are clear and convincingly discussed. This report is timely due because of the inherent importance of the topic and the relatively scant relevant literature. The cost of Floseal is an issue that the authors barely address, particularly relevant outside of the Western world in less developed countries. In this study, the decision to use the hemostatic matrix was made by the surgeon according to his/her preference and the intraoperative situation. Were the surgeons convinced that hemostasis could not be reached by traditional methods before applying the matrix? On the other hand, a percentage of about 6% of cranial and spinal procedures during which Floseal was applied seems to be reasonably adequate. I agree with the authors that Floseal represents a safe and efficacious method for controlling difficult intraoperative situations, but it must not be intended as the primary option for achieving hemostasis.

Domenico d'Avella

Padova, Italy

This article addresses an important issue. It investigates safety and efficacy in the use of Floseal, a hemostatic agent with widespread use despite the fact that it reached the market not too long ago. The authors have found an indication for its use in roughly 5% of all cases operated in the timeframe of the study. Indications and recommendations for the use of Floseal along with pearls to minimize any possible deleterious effects of the product are discussed. Widespread capillary or bone oozing is apparently the best indication for its use. Standard hemostasis procedures must always precede the use of any of these agents. Therefore, the argument of bipolar coagulation being time-consuming and therefore tedious is missing the point. Conformity to the cavity created especially in brain surgery is clearly an advantage. As a personal note, I have never found that regular hemostasis with bipolar, irrigation, and a little Gellfoam could not do the job for hemostasis in one or two level anterior cervical discectomies and fusion. For the younger generation and those starting their practices, the word should remain that nothing is more efficacious than regular hemostasis and that these adjuncts are of great value if not unduly used.

Manuel Cunha e Sa

Almada, Portugal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gazzeri, R., Galarza, M., Neroni, M. et al. Hemostatic matrix sealant in neurosurgery: a clinical and imaging study. Acta Neurochir 153, 148–155 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-010-0762-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-010-0762-y

Keywords

Navigation