Cargando…

Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone

BACKGROUND: Typically, fibrin sealants (FSs) and fibrin glues (FGs) are used to strengthen dural repairs during spinal surgery. In 2014, Epstein demonstrated that one FS/FG, Tisseel (Baxter International Inc., Westlake Village, CA, USA) equalized the average times to drain removal and length of stay...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Epstein, Nancy E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005579
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156561
_version_ 1782371278705917952
author Epstein, Nancy E.
author_facet Epstein, Nancy E.
author_sort Epstein, Nancy E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Typically, fibrin sealants (FSs) and fibrin glues (FGs) are used to strengthen dural repairs during spinal surgery. In 2014, Epstein demonstrated that one FS/FG, Tisseel (Baxter International Inc., Westlake Village, CA, USA) equalized the average times to drain removal and length of stay (LOS) for patients with versus without excess bleeding (e.g. who did not receive Tisseel) undergoing multilevel laminectomies with 1-2 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF).[6] METHODS: Here Tisseel was utilized to promote hemostasis for two populations; 39 patients undergoing average 4.4 level lumbar laminectomies with average 1.3 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF), and 48 patients undergoing average 4.0 level laminectomies alone (Lam). We compared the average operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for the LamF versus Lam groups. RESULTS: The average operative times, EBL, postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements were all greater for LamF versus Lam patients; operative times (4.1 vs. 3.0 h), average EBL (192.3 vs. 147.9 cc), drainage (e.g. day 1; 199.6 vs. 167.4 cc; day 2; 172.9 vs. 63.9 cc), average LOS (4.6 vs. 2.5 days), and transfusion requirements (11 LamF patients; 18 Units [U] RBC versus 2 Lam patients; 3 U RBC). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing Tisseel to facilitate hemostasis in LamF versus Lam still resulted in greater operative times, EBL, postoperative average drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for patients undergoing the noninstrumented fusions. Although Tisseel decreases back bleeding within the spinal canal, it does not reduce blood loss from LamF decorticated transverse processes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4431050
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44310502015-05-22 Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone Epstein, Nancy E. Surg Neurol Int Surgical Neurology International: Spine BACKGROUND: Typically, fibrin sealants (FSs) and fibrin glues (FGs) are used to strengthen dural repairs during spinal surgery. In 2014, Epstein demonstrated that one FS/FG, Tisseel (Baxter International Inc., Westlake Village, CA, USA) equalized the average times to drain removal and length of stay (LOS) for patients with versus without excess bleeding (e.g. who did not receive Tisseel) undergoing multilevel laminectomies with 1-2 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF).[6] METHODS: Here Tisseel was utilized to promote hemostasis for two populations; 39 patients undergoing average 4.4 level lumbar laminectomies with average 1.3 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF), and 48 patients undergoing average 4.0 level laminectomies alone (Lam). We compared the average operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for the LamF versus Lam groups. RESULTS: The average operative times, EBL, postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements were all greater for LamF versus Lam patients; operative times (4.1 vs. 3.0 h), average EBL (192.3 vs. 147.9 cc), drainage (e.g. day 1; 199.6 vs. 167.4 cc; day 2; 172.9 vs. 63.9 cc), average LOS (4.6 vs. 2.5 days), and transfusion requirements (11 LamF patients; 18 Units [U] RBC versus 2 Lam patients; 3 U RBC). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing Tisseel to facilitate hemostasis in LamF versus Lam still resulted in greater operative times, EBL, postoperative average drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for patients undergoing the noninstrumented fusions. Although Tisseel decreases back bleeding within the spinal canal, it does not reduce blood loss from LamF decorticated transverse processes. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4431050/ /pubmed/26005579 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156561 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Epstein NE. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Surgical Neurology International: Spine
Epstein, Nancy E.
Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
title Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
title_full Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
title_fullStr Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
title_full_unstemmed Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
title_short Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
title_sort tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
topic Surgical Neurology International: Spine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005579
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156561
work_keys_str_mv AT epsteinnancye tisseeldoesnotreducepostoperativedrainagelengthofstayandtransfusionrequirementsforlumbarlaminectomywithnoninstrumentedfusionversuslaminectomyalone