National prospective study on the use of local haemostatic agents during partial nephrectomy

Affiliation auteurs!!!! Error affiliation !!!!
TitreNational prospective study on the use of local haemostatic agents during partial nephrectomy
Type de publicationJournal Article
Year of Publication2014
AuteursLang H, Mouracade P, Gimel P, Bernhard JC, Pignot G, Zini L, Crepel M, Rigaud J, Salomon L, Bellec L, Vaessen C, Roupret M, Jung JL, Mourey E, Martin X, Bigot P, Bruyere F, Berger J, Ansieau JP, Salome F, Hubert J, Pfister C, Trifard F, Gigante M, Baumert H, Mejean A, Patard JJ
JournalBJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume113
PaginationE56-E61
Date PublishedMAY
Type of ArticleArticle
ISSN1464-4096
Mots-cléshaemostasis, haemostatic agent, Nephron-sparing surgery, partial nephrectomy, tissue sealants
Résumé

Objective To assess the use of local haemostatic agents (HAs) in a prospective multicentre large series of partial nephrectomies (PNs). Patients and Methods Prospective National Observational Registry on the Practices of Haemostasis in Partial Nephrectomy (NEPHRON): the study was conducted in 54 French urological centres from 1 June to 31 December 2010. In all, 570 consecutive patients undergoing a PN were enrolled in this study in a prospective manner. The data was collected prospectively via an electronic case-report form: five different sheets were included for preoperative, perioperative, postoperative and follow-up data respectively. Information related to haemostasis was analysed. Results The median patient age was 60 years and the mean (range) tumour size was 3.68 (0.19-15) cm. An HA was primarily used in 71.4% of patients, with a statistically significant difference among surgical approaches (P = 0.024). In 91.8% of cases, a single use of a HA was sufficient for achieving haemostasis. The HA was used either alone (13.9%) or in association with sutures (80.3%). One or more additional haemostatic action(s) was needed in 12.3% of the cases. When comparing patients who received a HA with those who did not receive a HA, there was no statistical difference between the groups for tumour size (P = 0.542), collecting system drainage (P = 0.538), hospital stay (P = 0.508), operation time (P = 0.169), blood loss (P = 0.387) or transfusion rate (P = 0.713). Conclusion HAs are widely used by urologists during PN. Progress is needed for standardising HA application, especially for the timing of application. For the time being, the role of the HA in nephron-sparing surgery is still to be evaluated.

DOI10.1111/bju.12397