• Ivan B Ye, Alexandra E Thomson, Ryan A Smith, Tyler J Pease, Navid Chowdhury, Jack Donahue, Vincent Miseo, Julio J Jauregui, Daniel L Cavanaugh, Eugene Y Koh, and Steven C Ludwig.
• Spine Surgery Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2023 Jun 24.

ObjectiveFlowable gelatin-based matrices with thrombin for hemostatic control are commercially available as Floseal (Baxter International Inc.) and Surgiflo (Ethicon Inc.). The objective of this study is to compare the rate of blood transfusions following the use of Floseal and Surgiflo in lumbar spine surgery.MethodsElective lumbar spine surgery patients between September 2019 and March 2021 were identified via CPT codes. Floseal 10 mL (N=102) and Surgiflo matrix 8 mL (N=108) cohorts excluded those younger than 18 years or those who underwent surgeries for infection, trauma, or tumor. The primary outcome was blood transfusion. Surgical complexity was controlled using the Surgical Invasiveness Index and Adult Spinal Deformity Invasiveness Score. The 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using demographic information, Surgical Invasiveness Index, Adult Spinal Deformity Invasiveness Score, and tranexamic acid use.ResultsA total of 77 Floseal patients were propensity score matched with 77 Surgiflo patients. There was no difference in the rate of blood transfusion (p=0.441). There was also no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative hemoglobin levels. The Surgiflo cohort used more units per surgery (p=0.004) and cost $102.45 more per surgery. Switching to Floseal saves $102,450 per year per 1000 surgeries.ConclusionsThere was no difference in transfusion rates between using Floseal or Surgiflo for lumbar spine surgery. Surgiflo had higher usage per surgery and costs than Floseal.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

7 keywords...

hide…