Is hemostatic agent effective and safe in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy?
Qiong Guo,Yifei Lin,Chenyang Zhang,Fangqun Leng,Youlin Long,Yifan Cheng,Liu Yang,Liang Du,Jin Huang,Ga Liao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000001992
IF: 6.133
2022-04-15
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:To the Editor: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the top ten most common cancers in adults.[1] Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard treatment for small RCC.[2] In recent decades, minimally invasive PN, including robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), has been considered as a viable alternative for open PN due to its less invasive approach. As a result, shorter hospital stay and favorable clinical outcomes are observed in RCC patients after minimally invasive PN treatment.[2] Intraoperative or post-operative hemorrhage and urinary leakage (UL) are the most common post-operative complications after PN, with the incidence rates of 1.2% to 9.5% and 1.2% to 4.5%, respectively.[3] Given that it is difficult to identify the complex renal vascularity and vascular border, one of the biggest challenges during minimally invasive PN is to minimize blood loss in the operating field.[3] At present, suture is recognized as the standard hemostatic method in PN for archiving renal parenchymal hemostasis.[3] To improve hemostasis and reduce the incidence of surgical complications after PN, a wide variety of hemostatic agents (HAs) have been developed and implemented. Topical biodegradable HAs, such as fibrin sealants (eg, TachoSil® [Takeda Pharma A/S, Linz, Austria], Tisseel® [Baxter Healthcare Corp., Deerfield, IL, USA], and Evicel® [OMRIX Biopharmaceuticals Ltd, Ramat Gan, Israel]), gelatin matrix thrombin sealants (eg, FloSeal® [Baxter Healthcare Corp., Deerfield, IL, USA]), etc, are the best choice owing to their low toxicity and natural degradation.[4]
medicine, general & internal