Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Operative Hemostasis in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: The Role of Biosurgical Agents

Written By

Kyle Dammann, Amanda Gifford, Kathryn Kelley and Stanislaw P. Stawicki

Submitted: July 2nd, 2020 Reviewed: September 18th, 2020 Published: October 19th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.94100

IntechOpen
Contemporary Applications of Biologic Hemostatic Agents across Surgical Specialties - Volu... Edited by Michael S. Firstenberg

From the Edited Volume

Contemporary Applications of Biologic Hemostatic Agents across Surgical Specialties - Volume 2 [Working Title]

Michael S. Firstenberg and Dr. Stanislaw P. Stawicki

Chapter metrics overview

336 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Trauma and acute care surgery (TACS) constitutes the foundation of emergency surgical services in the United States. Blunt and penetrating traumatic injuries are a leading cause of death worldwide. Non-trauma general surgical emergencies are also a major source of morbidity and mortality. Operative interventions performed within the scope of TACS often revolve around the core principles of contamination control, hemostasis, surgical repair, and subsequent functional restoration. Hemorrhage control is an integral part of emergent operative interventions, and while most instances of surgical bleeding require direct suture ligation or some other form of direct tissue intervention, some circumstances call for the use of adjunctive means of hemostasis. This is especially applicable to situations and settings where direct applications of surgical energy, suture ligation, or direct compression are not possible. Difficult-to-control bleeding can be highly lethal and operative control can be very challenging when confounded by the lethal triad of acidosis, coagulopathy and hypothermia. Topical biosurgical materials (BSM) are of great value in such scenarios, and their use across a variety of settings, from pre-hospital trauma application to emergency general surgery operations, represents an important adjunct to improve patient outcomes. Here we present the different BSMs, discuss their various uses, and provide insight on future applications and developments in this important area.

Keywords

  • acute care surgery
  • biosurgical hemostatic agent
  • injury
  • operative interventions
  • patient outcomes
  • trauma

1. Introduction

Achieving and maintaining hemostasis is essential across all subspecialties of surgery [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Direct application of pressure, suture ligation, and electrocautery may sufficiently control bleeding during straightforward procedures, however, such methods are often ineffective in hemodynamically unstable, coagulopathic or septic patients [6, 7, 8]. Biosurgical hemostats are increasingly important in facilitating hemostasis when standard measures prove inadequate, or in situations such as prehospital trauma [7, 9]. Biosurgical materials (BSM) are available in cotton-like, powder, patch, liquid, and glue format, and are classified based on their properties and interactions within the coagulation cascade [5, 10, 11]. The goal of this chapter is to review the many intricacies and molecular physiology of hemostasis, and to discuss the current role for biosurgicals within the overall operative strategy, focusing on applications of BSMs in acute care surgery and trauma.

Advertisement

2. Methods

The authors performed an exhaustive medical literature search utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar™ platforms. The following terms were utilized, alone or various combinations: “acute care surgery,” “biosurgical hemostat,” “biosurgical material,” “bleeding,” “coagulopathy,” “emergency surgery,” “hemorrhage,” “hemostasis,” “injury,” “management,” “non-surgical bleeding,” “surgery,” “transfusion,” “trauma.” Additional references identified during the primary literature search were subsequently reviewed and added. From more than 27,781,100 citations, we narrowed down the candidate study list to approximately 1400. The final reference list included the 90 results most relevant to the current chapter.

Advertisement

3. Coagulation cascade

The multiprotein coagulation cascade consists of two separate pathways, the contact mediated (intrinsic) and tissue factor (extrinsic) pathway which together unite to activate thrombin and form the fibrin plug (Figure 1) [12, 13]. Many of the anticoagulant medications focus on altering the steps herein, and the inherited coagulopathic disorders also feature abnormalities at various steps in the pathway [13, 14]. BSMs also interact here, as the so-called active agents contain thrombin and fibrinogen components, whereas passive agents rely on an already intact cascade [5].

Figure 1.

Overview of coagulation cascade. Diagram of the multistep intrinsic (left, blue) and extrinsic pathway (right, green). Whether initiated by surface contact or tissue damage, both pathways combine into the common pathway leading to activation of factor X and then subsequent thrombin-fibrin activation and finally formation of the fibrin clot. Legend demonstrates where hemostatic agents, mechanical, and adhesive hemostats exert their roles in the coagulation cascade.

Advertisement

4. Adhesive hemostats

Adhesive agents, whether liquid or fibrin patch, contain thrombin and fibrin thereby facilitating the final steps of the coagulation cascade [5, 11]. These added factors may help facilitate hemostasis in patients with various functional impairments within the coagulation cascade [15, 16]. Alterations within the coagulation mechanism that lead to the so-called “non-surgical bleeding” may be due to coagulopathy of massive traumatic hemorrhage, large intraoperative blood losses, or sepsis secondary to gastrointestinal perforation [8, 17, 18, 19, 20]. Within the broader context of surgical “damage control” emerges perhaps the most compelling use case for BSMs [21, 22].

Historically, adhesive preparations contained additional antifibrinolytic components such as tranexamic acid (TXA) and aprotinin, which are no longer utilized due to reported side effects in cardiac surgery, including anaphylaxis, renal failure, increased mortality (aprotinin), and neurotoxicity (tranexamic acid) [23, 24, 25]. There are several liquid formulations of adhesive hemostats and “patch” alternatives available today (Table 1) [5]. Liquid adhesives are easily applied to delicate tissue, while fibrin patch alternatives can be more bluntly applied to brisk hemorrhage thereby providing improved hemostasis for various tissue types [5]. Among available products, different brands have their own unique fibrinogen/thrombin ratio affecting clot strength and drying time [5, 9, 26]. In general, higher thrombin concentrations correlate with the rate of clot formation whereas increased fibrinogen levels are associated with overall clot strength, which is not surprising as thrombin functions more proximally to fibrinogen, acting as a limiting reagent in the coagulation cascade, whereas fibrinogen more directly affects fibrin levels within the fibrin plug (Figure 1) [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33].

Adhesive
NameManufacturerMechanismFormComment
BeriplastCSL Behring LLC King of Prussia, PA, USAThrombin/fibrinLiquidHemostasis on native and PTFE surfaces
EvicelOmrix LTD Ness Ziona, IL, USAThrombin/fibrinLiquidHemostasis on native and PTFE anastomosis, help with dural suture lines
FlosealBaxter Inc. Deerfeild, IL, USAThrombin/fibrin+porcine gelatineLiquid
QubeilOmrix LTD Ness Ziona, IL, USAThrombin/fibrinLiquid
SurgifloJ & J Healthcare Hacketstown, NJ, USAThrombin/fibrin+porcine gelatinLiquid
TissealBaxter Inc. Deerfeild, IL, USAThrombin/fibrinLiquidHemostasis on native and PTFE surfaces
EvarrestOmrix LTD Ness Ziona, IL USAThrombin/fibrinPatchPatch provides added compression
TachosilBaxter Inc. Deerfeild, IL USAThrombìn/fibrin+equine collagen patchPatchPatch provides added compression, hemostasis on portal and hepatic artery anastomosis
Use when coagulation cascade impaired. Do not use in the setting of allergy to blood products. Thromboembolic risk with intravascular administration

Table 1.

Adhesive hemostats.

Overview of adhesive hemostats name, manufacturer, mechanism, and form.

Clinical trials focused on controlling intrabdominal and retroperitoneal hemorrhage have demonstrated that adhesive hemostats containing fibrin/thrombin coagulation factors tend to be superior to hemostats lacking these components [5]. A number of vascular surgery studies have shown significant improvement in the rate of hemostasis on native and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) arterial anastomosis with several such agents (Table 1) [25, 34, 35]. In neurosurgical applications, another thrombin/fibrin adhesive was shown effective in helping to seal dural suture line leaks [36, 37]. For abdominal applications, one type of a hemostatic honeycomb patch matrix with added fibrin and thrombin factors was shown to reduce anastomotic bleeding following portal vein repair and hepatic artery reconstruction (Table 1) [5, 38]. However, there are conflicting data on whether these hemostatic agents can reduce the incidence of “structural” (versus “hemostatic”) events, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula following distal pancreatectomy, bile leakage status post hepatectomy, and persistent air leak after thoracic surgery [5].

Advertisement

5. Mechanical hemostats

Mechanical hemostats typically consist of cellulose, collagen, gelatin, and other plant-based materials [39, 40, 41]. The composition of these BSMs differs from the adhesive hemostats, as they lack coagulation factors and therefore require a functioning coagulation cascade to exert their effects [5]. Their mechanism of action relies on the absorbent capacity of the material, thereby exerting mass effect on the adjacent tissue and subsequent activation of the extrinsic coagulation pathway (Figure 1) [9, 42, 43].

Advertisement

6. Cellulose

Oxidized cellulose based hemostats are classified according to the way they are processed (regenerated versus non-regenerated) [5]. In short, the regenerated products have a more organized structure and conform better to their surroundings in comparison to the latter. Despite this, multiple studies have demonstrated greater hemostatic capacity for the non-regenerated products [44, 45, 46]. There are numerous products based on oxidized regenerated cellulose as the primary BSM, with relatively fewer non-regenerated products (Table 2) [5, 46]. In comparison to the adhesive hemostats, mechanical products are generally easier to use, relatively less expensive, and also exhibit bacteriostatic properties due to their low pH [20, 47, 48, 49]. Even though cellulose degrades within approximately 5 weeks, one limitation to its use includes the increased formation of granulation tissue months afterwards, which may produce a mass effect on vessels with subsequent stenosis or paralysis if adjacent nerves are compressed [50, 51, 52, 53, 54]. Moreover, the postoperative course for cancer patients may become significantly more complicated if granulation tissue results in a pseudotumor following the resection of the recurrent mass [50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55].

Mechanical
NameManufacturerMechanismFormComment
SurgicelEthicon Somerville, NJ, USAOxidized celluoseSheet
Surgicel FibrillarEthicon Somerville, NJ, USAOxidized celluoseSheet
Surgicel Nu-kitJ & J Healthcare Hacketstown, NJ, USAOxidized celluoseSheet
TraumastemBloster Veverská Bitẏŝka, Czech RepublicOxidized celluoseSheet
AviteneBard Warwick, RI, USACollagenSheet/sponge/powderHemostasis during crainiotomy
GelfoarmPfizer NY, NY, USAporcine gelatinSponge
AristaBard Warwick, RI, USApolysaccharide spheresPowderImproved hemostatis in cardiothoracic surgery
Need normal coagulation cascade. Low pH with bacteriacidal properties. Thromboembolic risk with intravascular infection.

Table 2.

Mechanical hemostats.

Overview of mechanical hemostats name, manufacturer, mechanism, and form.

Advertisement

7. Collagen-based biosurgicals

Collagen is a key component of extracellular membranes and, as such, a great deal of effort has been placed into bioengineering collagen-based biosurgicals (CBBs) [56]. Additionally it is thought that such hemostats would also facilitate wound healing and potentially assist in neovascularization [56]. One CBB is known to improve perioperative hemostasis during craniotomy, and similar collagen based materials were shown to improve hemostasis during gynecological procedures (Table 2) [57, 58]. A recently bioengineered product containing cellulose, chitosan, and oxidized bacterial cellulose was shown to be both bactericidal and hemostatic in an animal model of liver injury, comparing favorably to a commonly used alternative [59].

Advertisement

8. Gelatin-based mechanical hemostats

Gelatin based mechanical hemostats which are either bovine- or porcine-based, have a neutral pH permitting combination with thrombin adhesives [60]. Therefore their hemostatic function extends into two domains, including both “absorptive-mediated” activation of the extrinsic pathway in addition to facilitating the final steps of the thrombin-fibrin cascade [5, 61]. In terms of biodegradation, gelatin sponge, granule, and powder dissolves within approximately 6 weeks of placement [5]. Both gelatin- and collagen-based hemostats are effective in reducing perioperative blood loss. Additionally, neurosurgical models suggest that collagen-based products may be superior in controlling hemorrhage in spinal fusion procedures [62]. Although collagen- and gelatin-based products may be less expensive than fibrin products, one negative aspect is that when actively using blood saving techniques (e.g., cell-saver device), these products may pass through 20 micron filters leading to an inflammatory renal response [63].

Another mechanical hemostat category is derived from plant starch and is known as a microporous polysaccharide hemosphere (MPH) (Table 2) [64]. This highly absorbent product works similar to collagen and gelatin formulations through activation of the extrinsic clotting cascade. However, in comparison to collagen and gelatin, sufficient evidence exists in cardiothoracic surgery to demonstrate improved hemorrhage control, reduced chest tube output and fewer perioperative blood product transfusions [5]. From orthopedic surgery perspective, MPH may be favored as it does not inhibit bone healing compared to bone wax or microfibrillar collagen [65]. Moreover, microporous hemospheres absorb blood rapidly and have less capacity to cause infection and granuloma than other biologic hemostats [5, 66].

Advertisement

9. Sealant hemostats

Sealant hemostats (SH) are a class of hemostatic polymers which form a matrix by crosslinking and interlocking protein-rich adjacent tissues. Interestingly, sealants neither require the presence of blood products nor an intact coagulation cascade to exert their effects [5]. Natural sealants are derived from proteins and polysaccharides, while synthetic and semisynthetic products are composed of polyethylene glycol cyanoacrylate (PEG), polyurethane, dendrimer, and glutaraldehyde albumin biomaterials [67, 68]. Composite sealants contain both natural and synthetic components. All have been exploited for hemostasis, wound healing, fistula repair and implant fixation in fields such as cardiothoracic, biliary, urologic, plastic, neuro, and endoscopic surgery [68].

Natural fibrin based sealants are a mixture of fibrinogen and thrombin and come in either dry or foam preparations. They are mainly used to decrease suture and staple line seepage [56, 68]. Other proteins utilized in sealant applications include collagen, keratin, albumin, as well as muscle-derived products [68]. Polysaccharide compounds include chitosan, alginates, and chondroitin sulfates [69, 70]. A recent phase III clinical trial revealed that a fibrin-based sealant can provide excellent hemostasis, potentially superior to manual compression in patients undergoing open arterial surgery [71]. Interestingly, some of the well-known fibrin-based hemostats which leverage the coagulation cascade as the primary mechanism of action also exhibit a sealant function via covalent interactions with the surrounding tissues [56]. Even though fibrin sealants may be less effective in blood-saturated tissues, the potential benefit of an added “sealant feature” provided insight into research on new hemostatic sealants characterized by increased overall strength, elasticity, and stronger covalent interactions with surrounding tissues [72]. Other limitations of fibrin sealants include increased price compared to synthetic products, as well as high reliance on human plasma products for manufacturing purposes thereby increasing the risk, albeit very low, of transmissible disease [56].

PEG based products can be prepared in both patch and liquid formats to function as both hemostatic sealants and fluid barriers (Table 3) [5, 56]. There are patch products infused with collagen or cellulose, with superior hemostatic properties (Table 3) [5, 73]. Studies show less bleeding around anastomotic suture lines in nephrectomy and coronary artery bypass procedures with the use of bovine collagen and pentaerythritol polyethylene glycol ether tetra-succinimidyl glutarate patch [44, 46]. Similarly, a combined PEG and oxidized cellulose product significantly reduced oozing in hepatectomy procedures [74]. Another related product is effective as a fluid barrier and significantly improves closure of the dura during spinal surgery [75, 76, 77]. Finally, PEG-albumin sealants appear to be able to similarly reduce air leaks following pulmonary lobectomy procedures [44, 78, 79].

Sealants
NameManufacturerMechanismFormOther
HemopatchBaxter Deerfeild, IL, USAPEG/collagenPatchData to support use in nephrectomles and CABG
DurasealIntegra Palinsboro township, NJ, uSaPEGLiquidImproves dural closure
VerisetCovidien Walpole, MA, USAPEG/cellulosePatchDecreased bleeding after hepatectomy
FocalSealFocal Inc. Lexington, ma, USAEosin primer/PEGLiquidDecreased air leak after lobectomy
TissuGluCohera Medical Oplotnica, SolvaniaPolyurethaneLiquid
DermabondEthicon Somerville, NJ, USACryanoacylateLiquidExothermic reaction
BioglueCryoLife Kennesaw, GA, USAglutaraldehyde-bovine albuminLiquidSafe for vascular anastomosis
Do not use with renal disease patient’s

Table 3.

Hemostatic sealants.

Overview of hemostatic sealants name, manufacturer, mechanism, and form.

Polyurethane sealants have great potential and promise due to their highly elastic properties. Of importance, in an animal abdominoplasty model, this type of sealant was found to reduce seroma formation [56]. However there are safety concerns due to the potential thrombotic risk associated with similar products [56].

It is important to note that hemostatic sealants are not without risks, and their limitations include some concerns regarding the strength of the deployed material as well as some degree of interference with wound healing [68]. Although synthetic sealants have increased elasticity compared to natural counterparts, their limitations include longer curing time, the potential for chronic inflammation and the risk of cytotoxicity [56]. Moreover, PEG-based sealants should not be used in renal insufficiency as they are dependent on renal clearance following their breakdown and absorption [5]. Of note, PEG-sealants also tend to swell prior to degrading, which does provide tamponade assisting in hemostasis, but may be detrimental if applied within closed spaces that contain neurovascular structures or ureters [56]. Cyanoacrylates similar to those used in skin closure for improved cosmetic outcome, when used in large quantities, can produce significant amounts of heat and potentially lead to tissue damage [5]. Additionally, these products cannot be used intravascularly, or directly on vascular anastomoses, due to risk of embolization (in fact, the material can be utilized in therapeutic embolization and other hemostatic maneuvers) [80, 81, 82]. The glutaraldehyde-bovine albumin, on the other hand, is safe and effective to directly apply on vascular and cardiac anastomotic suture sites [5]. Moreover, the use of this type of substance was shown to reduce blood transfusion requirements postoperatively, appears to be safe on adjacent nerves, and carries only a limited risk of vascular anastomotic stenosis secondary to an inflammatory response if the product is applied circumferentially [5].

Advertisement

10. Hemostatic dressings

Mineral-based and polysaccharide containing hemostatic dressings are of great value for pre-hospital exsanguinating patients, especially when protective measures such as tourniquet placement are not feasible due to the anatomical location of the wound [83, 84]. Such dressings are classified based on their mechanism of action, and include factor concentrators, muco-adhesives, or procoagulants [5]. Factor concentrators composed of volcanic or clay minerals such as zeolite and smectite act by concentrating protein components of blood thereby facilitating clot formation. The most commonly used factor concentrator is composed of zeolite beads which can be poured directly into a wound to expedite hemostasis (Table 4). One downside of this product is that it releases significant amounts of heat in a highly exothermic reaction. Consequently, care must be taken to use this preparation externally only, with applications limited to quantities “as little as necessary” to stop external bleeding [5]. Muco-adhesive products consist of the polymer chitosan, a chitin based product, which is derived from crustacean exoskeleton material [85]. Interestingly, chitosan has no intrinsic hemostatic ability, but its chemical charge is opposite to erythrocytes, thus promoting hemostasis [86, 87].

Hemostatic
NameManufacturerMechanismFormOther
Quick clotZ-Medica LLC Wallingford, CT, USAZeolite beadsGuazeExothermic reaction. Needs to be removed from wound.
HemConTricol Biomedical Portland, OR, USAChitinGauzeExothermic reaction. Needs to be removed from wound.
Quick clot Combat GuazeZ-Medica LLC Wallingford, CT, USAKaolinGauzeExothermic reaction. Needs to be removed from wound.
Use externally for significant bleeding

Table 4.

Hemostatic agents.

Overview of hemostatic agents separated by name, manufacturer, mechanism, and formulation.

Procoagulant hemostats work by actively facilitating the coagulation cascade. One product, known as “combat gauze,” consists of surgical dressing coated with the mineral kaolin (Table 4) [88]. Kaolin is a nonreactive mineral that activates the intrinsic, contact-mediated clotting pathway when it comes in direct contact with damaged tissue [5]. The product is non-absorbable and must be removed after hemostasis is achieved, but does not create the exothermic reaction observed in factor concentrators. Baker and colleagues demonstrated that a novel fibrin-based sealant was equally effective when compared to “combat gauze” in a porcine model of both hepatic and femoral artery injury [89]. Similarly, this novel fibrin sealant was also shown to be superior other formulations in a similar swine model of splenic laceration [90]. Further studies are ongoing in this important and rapidly developing area of clinical investigation.

11. Future directions and conclusion

The ideal surgical hemostat should be biocompatible with its target tissues, safe, easy-to-use, and capable of providing rapid hemostasis. Importantly, BSMs should be able to operate under a broad range of conditions, possibly even when applied to actively bleeding or oozing surfaces, without being washed away or immediately losing their potency. Additionally, the optimal hemostat should have sufficient strength to hold the tissues in place to accomplish tamponade and assist in further healing. In the field of trauma and acute care surgery BSMs should maintain high levels of effectiveness for at least several hours, only act on the intended target tissues, should preferably be biodegradable, and should not impair wound healing. Affordability and ease of application are also important considerations. Future product development should also aim to incorporate, whenever possible, bactericidal properties. Moreover, novel materials may perform better if components like collagen are added to also assist in subsequent wound healing and maintenance of tissue integrity. Additionally, future research should aim to further understand the various tissue-specific effects of surgical hemostats, as well as their molecular and cellular interactions in order to individualize and optimize the resultant clinical outcomes.

References

  1. 1. Roger A et al. Hemostasis and hemostatic agents in minimally invasive surgery. Surgery. 2007;142(4):S39-S45
  2. 2. Kommu SS et al. Current status of hemostatic agents and sealants in urologic surgical practice. Reviews in urology. 2015;17(3):150
  3. 3. Silva, M.A., V. Muralidharan, and D.F. Mirza. The management of coagulopathy and blood loss in liver surgery. in Seminars in hematology. 2004. Elsevier.
  4. 4. Weil IA et al. Use and utility of hemostatic screening in adults undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgery. PloS one. 2015;10(12)
  5. 5. Chiara O et al. A systematic review on the use of topical hemostats in trauma and emergency surgery. BMC surgery. 2018;18(1):68
  6. 6. Stawicki SP, Cipolla J, Bria C. Comparison of open abdomens in nontrauma and trauma patients: A retrospective study. International Journal of Academic Medicine. 2016;2(3):51
  7. 7. Kozen BG et al. An alternative hemostatic dressing: comparison of CELOX, HemCon, and QuikClot. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2008;15(1):74-81
  8. 8. Stawicki SP et al. The concept of damage control: extending the paradigm to emergency general surgery. Injury. 2008;39(1):93-101
  9. 9. Seyednejad H et al. Topical haemostatic agents. British Journal of Surgery. 2008;95(10):1197-1225
  10. 10. Spotnitz WD, Burks S. Hemostats, sealants, and adhesives: components of the surgical toolbox. Transfusion. 2008;48(7):1502-1516
  11. 11. Spotnitz WD, Burks S. Hemostats, sealants, and adhesives III: a new update as well as cost and regulatory considerations for components of the surgical toolbox. Transfusion. 2012;52(10):2243-2255
  12. 12. Gale AJ. Continuing education course# 2: current understanding of hemostasis. Toxicologic pathology. 2011;39(1):273-280
  13. 13. Khorsand, D., B. Samuelson, and C. Ingraham, Chapter 5: BLEEDING DISORDERS, THE COAGULATION CASCADE. Interventional Radiology: Fundamentals of Clinical Practice, 2018: p. 43.
  14. 14. Bennett, J.D. and E.M. Ferneini, Coagulopathy, An Issue of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, E-Book. Vol. 28. 2016: Elsevier Health Sciences.
  15. 15. Hoffman M, Monroe DM. Coagulation 2006: a modern view of hemostasis. Hematology/oncology clinics of North America. 2007;21(1):1-11
  16. 16. Firstenberg MS, Hanna JM, Stawicki SP. The Role of Biosurgical Hemostatic Sealants in Cardiac Surgery, in Contemporary Applications of Biologic Hemostatic Agents Across Surgical Specialties - Volume 1. 2020. IntechOpen.
  17. 17. Barry N et al. An exploratory, hypothesis-generating, meta-analytic study of damage control resuscitation in acute hemorrhagic shock: Examining the behavior of patient morbidity and mortality in the context of plasma-to-packed red blood cell ratios. International Journal of Academic Medicine. 2016;2(2):159
  18. 18. Smith BP et al. Review of abdominal damage control and open abdomens: focus on gastrointestinal complications. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2010;19(4):425-435
  19. 19. James C et al. A proposed algorithm for managing the open abdomen. The American Surgeon. 2005;71(3):202-207
  20. 20. Kakaei F et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of different haemostatic agents for haemostasis of the liver after hepatic resection. HPB surgery. 2013;2013
  21. 21. Aucar, J.A., V. Punja, and J.A. Asensio, Biosurgicals and Trauma, in Contemporary Applications of Biologic Hemostatic Agents Across Surgical Specialties - Volume 1. 2019, IntechOpen.
  22. 22. Sanders, L. and J. Nagatomi, Clinical applications of surgical adhesives and sealants. Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, 2014. 42(3-4).
  23. 23. Fischer CP et al. A randomized trial of aprotinin-free fibrin sealant versus absorbable hemostat. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 2011;17(6):572-577
  24. 24. Murkin JM et al. High-dose tranexamic acid is associated with nonischemic clinical seizures in cardiac surgical patients. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2010;110(2):350-353
  25. 25. Chalmers R et al. Randomized clinical trial of tranexamic acid-free fibrin sealant during vascular surgical procedures. British journal of surgery. 2010;97(12):1784-1789
  26. 26. Suzuki, S. and Y. Ikada, Biomaterials for surgical operation. 2011: Springer Science & Business Media.
  27. 27. Mooney R et al. Mechanical Characteristics of Fibroblast–Fibrin Constructs: Effect of Fibrinogen and Thrombin Concentration. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2005;13(2):A4-A27
  28. 28. Harr, J.N., et al., Functional fibrinogen assay indicates that fibrinogen is critical in correcting abnormal clot strength following trauma. Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2013. 39(1): p. 45.
  29. 29. Kornblith LZ et al. Fibrinogen and platelet contributions to clot formation: implications for trauma resuscitation and thromboprophylaxis. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 2014;76(2):255
  30. 30. Lang T et al. The effects of fibrinogen levels on thromboelastometric variables in the presence of thrombocytopenia. Anesthesia & analgesia. 2009;108(3):751-758
  31. 31. White, N.J., et al., Clot formation is associated with fibrinogen and platelet forces in a cohort of severely-injured Emergency Department trauma patients. Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2015. 44(0 1): p. 39.
  32. 32. Lord ST. Fibrinogen and fibrin: scaffold proteins in hemostasis. Current opinion in hematology. 2007;14(3):236-241
  33. 33. Seegers WH, Smith H. Factors which influence the activity of purified thrombin. American Journal of Physiology-Legacy Content. 1942;137(2):348-354
  34. 34. Miyabashira S et al. Potent Hemostatic Efficacy of a Novel Recombinant Fibrin Sealant Patch (KTF-374) in Rabbit Bleeding Models. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2019;32(3):257-261
  35. 35. Saha SP et al. A prospective randomized study comparing fibrin sealant to manual compression for the treatment of anastomotic suture-hole bleeding in expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Journal of vascular surgery. 2012;56(1):134-141
  36. 36. Biscola NP et al. Multiple uses of fibrin sealant for nervous system treatment following injury and disease. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases. 2017;23(1):13
  37. 37. Green AL et al. A multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the use of a fibrin sealant as an adjunct to sutured dural repair. British journal of neurosurgery. 2015;29(1):11-17
  38. 38. Simo KA et al. Hemostatic agents in hepatobiliary and pancreas surgery: a review of the literature and critical evaluation of a novel carrier-bound fibrin sealant (TachoSil). ISRN surgery. 2012;2012
  39. 39. Wheat JC, Wolf JS. Advances in bioadhesives, tissue sealants, and hemostatic agents. Urologic Clinics. 2009;36(2):265-275
  40. 40. Singh RK et al. Hemostatic comparison of a polysaccharide powder and a gelatin powder. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2019;32(5):393-401
  41. 41. Mair H. Comparison of Topical Hemostatic Agents: Starch powder. Gelatin sponge or Gelatin matrix and Oxidized regenerated Cellulose Review of Adverse Events.
  42. 42. de Campos, N., F. Furlaneto, and Y.D.P. Buischi, Bleeding in Dental Surgery, in Contemporary Applications of Biologic Hemostatic Agents Across Surgical Specialties - Volume 1. 2019, IntechOpen.
  43. 43. Goncalves S et al. Biomaterials in otologic surgery. Inflammation and Cell Signaling. 2015;2
  44. 44. Lewis, K.M., C.E. Kuntze, and H. Gulle, Control of bleeding in surgical procedures: critical appraisal of HEMOPATCH (Sealing Hemostat). Medical Devices (Auckland, NZ), 2016. 9: p. 1.
  45. 45. Phinichka N, Kaenthong S. Regenerated cellulose from high alpha cellulose pulp of steam-exploded sugarcane bagasse. Journal of materials research and technology. 2018;7(1):55-65
  46. 46. Lewis K et al. Comparison of regenerated and non-regenerated oxidized cellulose hemostatic agents. European Surgery. 2013;45(4):213-220
  47. 47. Palm MD, Altman JS. Topical hemostatic agents: a review. Dermatologic Surgery. 2008;34(4):431-445
  48. 48. MP, S.K., Local hemostatic agents in the management of bleeding in oral surgery. Asian J Pharm Clin Res, 2016. 9(3): p. 35-41.
  49. 49. Arat YO et al. Compressive optic neuropathy after use of oxidized regenerated cellulose in orbital surgery: review of complications, prophylaxis, and treatment. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(2):333-337
  50. 50. Partheni M et al. Radiculopathy after lumbar discectomy due to intraspinal retained Surgicel: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. The Spine Journal. 2006;6(4):455-458
  51. 51. Hart R. Topping Phenomenon with Recurrent Spinal Stenosis and Epidural Fibrosis Prevented with Oxidized Cellulose–a Case Report. Acta Medica (Hradec Králové). 2018;61(2):69-73
  52. 52. Wang H, Chen P. Surgicel®(oxidized regenerated cellulose) granuloma mimicking local recurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a case report. Oncology letters. 2013;5(5):1497-1500
  53. 53. Somani BK et al. Surgicel granuloma mimicking a renal tumour. Surgery. 2006;139(3):451
  54. 54. Ito H et al. Granuloma caused by oxidized cellulose following craniotomy. Acta neurochirurgica. 1989;100(1-2):70-73
  55. 55. Kothbauer KF et al. Foreign body reaction to hemostatic materials mimicking recurrent brain tumor: Report of three cases. Journal of neurosurgery. 2001;95(3):503-506
  56. 56. Annabi N et al. Elastic sealants for surgical applications. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2015;95:27-39
  57. 57. Nakamura N et al. Clinical application of microfibrillar collagen hemostat (Avitene) in neurosurgical field. No shinkei geka. Neurological surgery. 1988;16(8):933-938
  58. 58. Toyoda S et al. Postoperative cytological findings from the use of the I ntegran microfibrillar collagen hemostatic matrix in conization. Diagnostic cytopathology. 2018;46(7):624-626
  59. 59. Yuan H, Chen L, Hong F. A biodegradable antibacterial nanocomposite based on oxidized bacterial nanocellulose for rapid hemostasis and wound healing. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2019
  60. 60. Revelli, L., et al., Topical hemostatic agents, in Minimally Invasive Therapies for Endocrine Neck Diseases. 2016, Springer. p. 249-259.
  61. 61. Lewis KM et al. Comparison of two gelatin and thrombin combination hemostats in a porcine liver abrasion model. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2013;26(3):141-148
  62. 62. Xu D et al. A randomized controlled trial on effects of different hemostatic sponges in posterior spinal fusion surgeries. BMC surgery. 2016;16(1):80
  63. 63. Niebauer GW et al. Simultaneous use of microfibrillar collagen hemostat and blood saving devices in a canine kidney perfusion model. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 1989;48(4):523-527
  64. 64. Lewis, K.M., et al., Efficacy of hemostatic matrix and microporous polysaccharide hemospheres. journal of surgical research, 2015. 193(2): p. 825-830.
  65. 65. Ereth M et al. Microporous polysaccharide hemospheres do not inhibit bone healing compared to bone wax or microfibrillar collagen. Orthopedics. 2008;31(3):222-222
  66. 66. Tan SR, Tope WD. Effectiveness of microporous polysaccharide hemospheres for achieving hemostasis in mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatologic surgery. 2004;30(6):908-914
  67. 67. Duarte A et al. Surgical adhesives: Systematic review of the main types and development forecast. Progress in Polymer Science. 2012;37(8):1031-1050
  68. 68. Peng HT, Shek PN. Novel wound sealants: biomaterials and applications. Expert review of medical devices. 2010;7(5):639-659
  69. 69. Gorman, A. and S. Pendharkar, Hemostatic wound dressing containing aldehyde-modified polysaccharide and hemostatic agents. 2004, Google Patents.
  70. 70. Pendharkar, S., Hemostatic wound dressing containing aldehyde-modified polysaccharide. 2004, Google Patents.
  71. 71. Nenezić D et al. A prospective, single-blind, randomized, phase III study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Fibrin Sealant Grifols as an adjunct to hemostasis compared with manual compression in vascular surgery. Journal of vascular surgery. 2019;70(5):1642-1651
  72. 72. Fancy DA, Kodadek T. Chemistry for the analysis of protein–protein interactions: rapid and efficient cross-linking triggered by long wavelength light. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999;96(11):6020-6024
  73. 73. Medtronic. Veriset [TM] Hemostatic Patch. 2020 June 8, 2020]; Available from: https://www.medtronic.com/covidien/en-us/products/hemostasis/veriset-hemostatic-patch.html.
  74. 74. Öllinger R et al. A multicentre, randomized clinical trial comparing the Veriset™ haemostatic patch with fibrin sealant for the management of bleeding during hepatic surgery. Hpb. 2013;15(7):548-558
  75. 75. Kim KD, Wright NM. Polyethylene glycol hydrogel spinal sealant (DuraSeal Spinal Sealant) as an adjunct to sutured dural repair in the spine: results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study. Spine. 2011;36(23):1906-1912
  76. 76. Preul MC et al. A unique dual-function device–A dural sealant with adhesion-prevention properties. Europ Musculoskel Rev. 2006;2006:41-44
  77. 77. Jarrett, P. and A. Coury, Tissue adhesives and sealants for surgical applications, in Joining and Assembly of Medical Materials and Devices. 2013, Elsevier. p. 449-490.
  78. 78. Macchiarini P et al. Experimental and clinical evaluation of a new synthetic, absorbable sealant to reduce air leaks in thoracic operations. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 1999;117(4):751-758
  79. 79. Petter-Puchner AH et al. A comparison of a cyanaocrylate glue (Glubran) vs. fibrin sealant (Tisseel) in experimental models of partial pulmonary resection and lung incison in rabbits. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2010;23(1):40-47
  80. 80. Pollak JS, White RI Jr. The use of cyanoacrylate adhesives in peripheral embolization. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2001;12(8):907-913
  81. 81. Seewald S et al. Cyanoacrylate glue in gastric variceal bleeding. Endoscopy. 2002;34(11):926-932
  82. 82. Kok K et al. Distal embolization and local vessel wall ulceration after gastric variceal obliteration with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate: a case report and review of the literature. Endoscopy. 2004;36(05):442-446
  83. 83. Rossaint R et al. Management of bleeding following major trauma: an updated European guideline. Critical care. 2010;14(2):R52
  84. 84. Duggan MJ et al. Development of a lethal, closed-abdomen grade V hepato-portal injury model in non-coagulopathic swine. Journal of Surgical Research. 2013;182(1):101-107
  85. 85. Enescu D, Olteanu CE. Functionalized chitosan and its use in pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnological research. Chemical Engineering Communications. 2008;195(10):1269-1291
  86. 86. Wen, J., The chemical modification of hyperbranched polyglycerols for improved bioadhesive and hemostatic properties. 2015, University of British Columbia.
  87. 87. Dash M et al. Chitosan—A versatile semi-synthetic polymer in biomedical applications. Progress in polymer science. 2011;36(8):981-1014
  88. 88. Kheirabadi BS et al. Safety evaluation of new hemostatic agents, smectite granules, and kaolin-coated gauze in a vascular injury wound model in swine. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2010;68(2):269-278
  89. 89. Baker JE et al. Evaluation of a novel fibrin sealant patch in hemorrhage control after vascular or hepatic injury. Military medicine. 2019;184(3-4):e290-e296
  90. 90. Matonick JP, Hammond J. Hemostatic efficacy of EVARREST™, Fibrin Sealant Patch vs. TachoSil® in a heparinized swine spleen incision model. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2014;27(6):360-365

Written By

Kyle Dammann, Amanda Gifford, Kathryn Kelley and Stanislaw P. Stawicki

Submitted: July 2nd, 2020 Reviewed: September 18th, 2020 Published: October 19th, 2020