Systematic review of hemostatic agents used in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hemostatic agents are routinely used in vascular surgery to complement proper suture techniques and decrease the risk of perioperative bleeding. A relative lack of comparative research studies have left surgeons with the option of choosing hemostatic agents based on their personal experience. The present review has highlighted the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents and categorized them according to their primary mechanism of action and cost. METHODS: A systematic search strategy encompassing hemostatic agent products was deployed in the PubMed database. Single-center and multicenter, randomized, controlled trials with >10 patients were included in the present study. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 studies on the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents compared with manual compression or other hemostatic agents. Using the time to hemostasis as the primary end point, all studies had found hemostatic agents to be significantly more efficient than manual compression. Likewise, adhesives (high pressure sealants) and dual agents (containing biologically active and absorbable components) were found to be more efficient, but costlier, than agents with either biologically active or absorbable components only. Agents with porcine or bovine constituents were found to trigger anaphylactic reactions in rare cases. Additionally, the absence of fibrin stabilizing factor XIII in a brand of fibrin sealant was speculated to reduce the affinity of the fibrin sealant for the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft. The cost of agents varied greatly depending on their active ingredient. CONCLUSIONS: Hemostatic agents appear to be highly effective at decreasing the risk of bleeding during surgical procedures. Although some hemostatic agents were demonstrated to achieve hemostasis faster than others, most are able to control bleeding within <10 minutes. Based on the limited data, the least expensive agents might suffice for limited suture lines used in routine procedures.

Open versus endoscopic component separation: a cost comparison.

BACKGROUND: The components separation technique (CST) is performed through an open or endoscopic approach. It is unclear whether the costs associated with the endoscopic instruments outweigh any clinical benefit derived from their use and the avoidance of lipocutaneous flaps. This study aimed to compare the direct costs associated with each approach. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing open or endoscopic CST between 2005 and 2009 was performed. The review compared patient-related variables, length of hospital stay, wound morbidity, and costs associated with the index operation and encounters within a 6-month period. RESULTS: Of the 54 patients identified, 59% underwent endoscopic repair, and 41% had an open CST repair. The patients were similar in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), number of prior surgeries, active abdominal infection, defect size, operating room time, and length of hospital stay. The overall median direct costs were similar between endoscopic and open CST ($9,942 vs. $17,701; p = 0.09). No difference was detected in median operating room costs, but an approximate $7,000 difference was noted between endoscopic and open CST ($1,871 vs. $8,705; p = 0.96). The median mesh costs differed significantly between endoscopic and open CST ($733 vs. $8,415; p = 0.05) as did stapler use costs ($35 vs. $190; p = 0.002). The median cost of endoscopic instruments was $848. Open CST had a 41% major wound morbidity rate compared with 19% in the endoscopic group (p = 0.07). Most of the encounters in the 6-month follow-up period (85%) were related to wound morbidity. The median cumulative direct costs differed between endoscopic and open CST at 3 and 6 months ($12,528 vs. $20,326; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a similarly complex group of patients, the total direct costs associated with endoscopic and open CST were similar. Endoscopic instruments made a marginal contribution to the total overall costs, but significant cost contributors were the use of biologic grafts and wound morbidity.