The use of fibrin sealant during non-emergency surgery: a systematic review of evidence of benefits and harms

Abstract

BackgroundFibrin sealants are used in different types of surgery to prevent the accumulation of post-operative fluid (seroma) or blood (haematoma) or to arrest haemorrhage (bleeding). However, there is uncertainty around the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use.ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence on the benefits and harms of fibrin sealants in non-emergency surgery in adults.Data sourcesElectronic databases [MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)] were searched from inception to May 2015. The websites of regulatory bodies (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration) were also searched to identify evidence of harms.Review methodsThis review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using any type of fibrin sealant compared with standard care in non-emergency surgery in adults. The primary outcome was risk of developing seroma and haematoma. Only RCTs were used to inform clinical effectiveness and both RCTs and observational studies were used for the assessment of harms related to the use of fibrin sealant. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and validated by a second. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for adverse events for observational studies. A fixed-effects model was used for meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 186 RCTs and eight observational studies across 14 surgical specialties and five reports from the regulatory bodies. Most RCTs were judged to be at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were inappropriately reported in observational studies. Meta-analysis across non-emergency surgical specialties did not show a statistically significant difference in the risk of seroma for fibrin sealants versus standard care in 32 RCTs analysed [n = 3472, odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.04;p = 0.13;I2 = 12.7%], but a statistically significant benefit was found on haematoma development in 24 RCTs (n = 2403, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86;p = 0.01;I2 = 0%). Adverse events related to fibrin sealant use were reported in 10 RCTs and eight observational studies across surgical specialties, and 22 RCTs explicitly stated that there were no adverse events. One RCT reported a single death but no other study reported mortality or any serious adverse events. Five regulatory body reports noted death from air emboli associated with fibrin sprays.LimitationsIt was not possible to provide a detailed evaluation of individual RCTs in their specific contexts because of the limited resources that were available for this research. In addition, the number of RCTs that were identified made it impractical to conduct independent data extraction by two reviewers in the time available.ConclusionsThe effectiveness of fibrin sealants does not appear to vary according to surgical procedures with regard to reducing the risk of seroma or haematoma. Surgeons should note the potential risk of gas embolism if spray application of fibrin sealants is used and not to exceed the recommended pressure and spraying distance. Future research should be carried out in surgery specialties for which only limited data were found, including neurological, gynaecological, oral and maxillofacial, urology, colorectal and orthopaedics surgery (for any outcome); breast surgery and upper gastrointestinal (development of haematoma); and cardiothoracic heart or lung surgery (reoperation rates). In addition, studies need to use adequate sample sizes, to blind participants and outcome assessors, and to follow reporting guidelines.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020710.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic review of fibrin glue in burn wound reconstruction

“…The role of fibrin glue in elective surgery was assessed recently in a systematic review and meta‐analysis. This excluded all studies included in the present review as burn injuries did not meet the inclusion criteria.…”

“…A significant safety concern was raised regarding air embolism with fibrin glue spray delivery systems. However, the European Medical Agency concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks. Furthermore, this complication was seen predominantly in intra‐abdominal or vascular surgery and is unlikely to arise in skin grafting.…”

“…Since approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998, there have been significant advances in their application; there are now four FDA‐approved fibrin sealants available for topical use. Fibrin glue has been used across surgical specialties, with several delivery systems available.…”

<p>Fibrin-thrombin sealant does not reduce lymphocele formation in patients with inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy for vulvar cancer</p>

“…To date, few adverse outcomes of fibrin sealants have been reported and the majority of trials found no harm related to their use 26. Intravascular application with subsequent thrombosis or gas embolism in the case of spray usage, allergic reactions, poor wound healing and infections account for possible and reported harms of sealants.…”

Thrombostatic Agents and Tissue Adhesives in the Emergency Department: Stopping the Bleeding, Closing the Wound, and Novel Applications

“…In many cases, these agents are used in confined places and can then lead to compression of surrounding structures. Many of the complications associated with these agents are related to surgical uses rather than emergency department applications [39].…”