• Alessandro Antonelli, Andrea Minervini, Andrea Mari, Riccardo Bertolo, Giampaolo Bianchi, Alberto Lapini, Nicola Longo, Giuseppe Martorana, Vincenzo Mirone, Giuseppe Morgia, Giacomo Novara, Francesco Porpiglia, Bernardo Rocco, Bruno Rovereto, Riccardo Schiavina, Claudio Simeone, Mario Sodano, Carlo Terrone, Vincenzo Ficarra, Marco Carini, Sergio Serni, and RECORd Project-LUNA Foundation.
• Department of Urology, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
• Int. J. Urol. 2015 Jan 1;22(1):47-52.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of hemostatic agents, TachoSil and FloSeal, during partial nephrectomy using a large multicenter dataset.MethodsData of 1055 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy between January 2009 and December 2012 in 19 Italian centers were collected within an observational multicentric study (RECORd Project). The decision whether or not to use hemostatic agents after renorrhaphy and the type of hemostatic agents applied was adopted according to the centers' and surgeons' preference. A TriMatch propensity score analysis was applied to balance three study groups (no hemostatic agents, TachoSil, FloSeal) for sex, age, surgical indication (elective/relative vs imperative), clinical stage (cT1a vs cT1b), tumor exophyticity, approach (open vs minimally invasive), technique (standard partial nephrectomy vs simple enucleation), preoperative hemoglobin and creatinine. Postoperative complications and variation of hemoglobin and creatinine values between preoperative versus third postoperative day were compared.ResultsTriMatch analysis allowed us to obtain 66 well-balanced triplets. No differences were found in terms of outcomes between the study groups.ConclusionsThe present findings suggest that adding hemostatic agents to renorraphy during partial nephrectomy does not provide better surgical outcomes.© 2014 The Japanese Urological Association.

29 keywords...

hide…