Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of sealing hemostat patch (HEMOPATCH®) in laparotomic myomectomy: a prospective case–control study

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Uterine myomas are the most common gynecological disease. In these cases, a myomectomy is performed traditionally laparotomically. However, alternatives have been widely used, including laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic surgery. During these techniques, diffuse parenchymatous bleeding remains one of the main intraoperative and postoperative complications and sometimes requires unplanned hysterectomies. Recently, hemostatic agents and sealants have been used to prevent excessive blood loss during surgical repair.

Methods

We propose a prospective case–control study on the use of a sealing hemostat patch (HEMOPATCH®) on uterine sutures in laparotomic myomectomy. In the period between July 2016 and April 2017, 46 patients with symptomatic uterine fibromatosis underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups of 23 patients, with different treatments in the hemostatic phase of oozing bleeding. HEMOPATCH® is applied in group A, and spray electrocoagulation is applied in group B.

Results

In group A, we achieve faster hemostasis (p < 0.05), than in group B. We report a significantly lower C-reactive protein value on the second and third days after surgery for group A compared to group B.

Conclusions

HEMOPATCH®, during laparotomic myomectomy, is a valid alternative solution for obtaining rapid hemostasis and consequently intraoperative and postoperative bleeding. Furthermore, we suggest that a lower inflammatory peritoneal state is probably correlated with the barrier effect of the patch on the suture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Day Baird D, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman EJM (2003) High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(1):100–107. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. BhaveChittawar P, Franik S, Pouwer AW, Farquhar EC (2014) Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004638.pub3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rivas-López R, Sandoval-García-Travesí FA (2020) Cirugía robótica en ginecología: revisión de la literatura. CIRU 88(1):1332. https://doi.org/10.24875/CIRU.18000636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parker WH (2007) Uterine myomas: management. Fertil Steril 88(2):255–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Friedman JA, Wong JMK, Chaudhari A, Tsai S, Milad MP (2018) Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comparison of techniques and review of current evidence in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 30(4):243–251. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Milazzo GN, Catalano A, Badia V, Mallozzi M, Caserta D (2017) Myoma and myomectomy: poor evidence concern in pregnancy: myoma and myomectomy in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 43(12):1789–1804. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hickman LC, Kotlyar A, Shue S, Falcone T (2016) Hemostatic techniques for myomectomy: an evidence-based approach. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(4):497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mirowska-Allen KL, Kong KK, Ang WC (2018) Unplanned hysterectomy following myomectomy at a tertiary institution: a case series and review of the literature. J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord 1(3):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/2284026518783664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nordentoft T (2015) Sealing of gastrointestinal anastomoses with fibrin glue coated collagen patch. Dan Med J 62(5):B5081

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oz MC, Rondinone JF, Shargill NS (2003) FloSeal matrix: new generation topical hemostatic sealant. J Card Surg 18(6):486–493. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0886-0440.2003.00302.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ayachi A, Bouchahda R, Derouich S, Mkaouer L, Kehila M, Abouda H, Channoufi B, Bouyahia M, Braham M, Zhioua F, Bouchahda H, Mourali M (2018) Accuracy of preoperative real-time dynamic transvaginal ultrasound sliding sign in prediction of pelvic adhesions in women with previous abdominopelvic surgery: prospective, multicenter, double-blind study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51:253–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Seinera P, Arisio R, Decko A, Farina C, Crana F (1997) Laparoscopic myomectomy: indications, surgical technique and complications. Hum Reprod 12(9):1927–1930. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.9.1927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kongnyuy EJ, Wiysonge CS (2014) Interventions to reduce haemorrhage during myomectomy for fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005355.pub5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Taylor E, Gomel V (2008) The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril 89(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.09.069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lethaby A, Vollenhoven B, Sowter MC (2001) Pre-operative GnRH analogue therapy before hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Montano N et al (2020) Hemopatch® with fibrin glue as a Dural sealant in cranial and spinal surgery. A technical note with a review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 79:144–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pisapia A, Crolla E, Saracco M, Saglioccolo A, Dolce P, Molino C (2019) The effectiveness of HemopatchTM in preventing postoperative distal pancreatectomy fistulas. Expert Rev Med Devices 16(3):253–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2019.1582328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hupe MC, Büttner M, Tabrizi PF, Merseburger AS, Kuczyk MA, Imkamp F (2020) Hemopatch® as a hemostatic agent is safe in partial nephrectomy: a large, single-surgeon retrospective evaluation. Adv Ther. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01584-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Weltert L, D'Aleo S, Chirichilli I, Falco M, Turani F, Bellisario A, et al (2016) Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of HEMOPATCH Topical Sealant in Cardiac Surgery. Surg Technol Int XXIX:sti29/756

  20. Raga F, Sanz-Cortes M, Bonilla F, Casañ EM, Bonilla-Musoles F (2009) Reducing blood loss at myomectomy with use of a gelatin-thrombin matrix hemostatic sealant. Fertil Steril 92(1):356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.04.038

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Angioli R, Plotti F, Ricciardi R, Terranova C, Zullo MA, Damiani P et al (2012) The use of novel hemostatic sealant (Tisseel) in laparoscopic myomectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 26:2046–2053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis KM, Gulle H, Kuntze E (2015) Control of bleeding in surgical procedures: critical appraisal of HEMOPATCH (sealing hemostat). MDER. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S90591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Farquhar C, Vandekerckhove P, Watson A, Vail A, Wiseman D (2000) Barrier agents for preventing adhesions after surgery for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine PM, Dervenis C, Young RL (2001) Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical significance. Dig Surg 18(4):260–273. https://doi.org/10.1159/000050149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Imkamp F, Tolkach Y, Wolters M, Jutzi S, Kramer M, Herrmann T (2015) Initial experiences with the Hemopatch® as a hemostatic agent in zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. World J Urol 33(10):1527–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1404-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Olthof PB, Rassam F, van Gulik TM (2018) The use of a NHS-PEG coated, collagen-based sealant in a patient undergoing associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). Int J Surg Case Reports 47:7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2018.03.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tompeck AJ, Gajdhar AUR, Dowling M et al (2020) A comprehensive review of topical hemostatic agents: the good, the bad, and the novel. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 88:e1–e21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gonzalez-Quintero VH, Cruz-Pachano FE (2009) Preventing adhesions in obstetric and gynecologic surgical procedures. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2:38–45

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Harris JA, Uppal S, Kamdar N et al (2017) A retrospective cohort study of hemostatic agent use during hysterectomy and risk of postoperative complications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 136:232–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson CK, Medlin E, Ferriss AF, Sheeder J, Davidson S, Gibbs R et al (2014) Association between gelatin-thrombin matrix use and abscesses in women undergoing pelvic surgery. Obstetrics Gynecol 124(3):589–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Suzuki Y, Vellinga TT, Istre O, Einarsson JI (2010) Small bowel obstruction associated with use of a gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant (FloSeal1) after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:641–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hobday CD, Milam MR, Milam RA et al (2009) Postoperative small bowel obstruction associated with use of hemostatic agents. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:224–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support was received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital Foundation, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

    Roberto Montera, Fernando Ficarola, Francesco Plotti, Corrado Terranova, Carlo De Cicco Nardone, Federica Guzzo, Roberto Angioli & Daniela Luvero

Authors
  1. Roberto Montera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernando Ficarola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Plotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Corrado Terranova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlo De Cicco Nardone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Federica Guzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Roberto Angioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniela Luvero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by RM, FF and DL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by RM, FF and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Ficarola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Roberto Montera declares that he has no conflict of interest. Fernando Ficarola declares that he has no conflict of interest. Francesco Plotti declares that he has no conflict of interest. Corrado Terranova declares that he has no conflict of interest. Carlo De Cicco Nardone declares that he has no conflict of interest. Federica Guzzo declares that she has no conflict of interest. Roberto Angioli declares that he has no conflict of interest. Daniela declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964 and its subsequent amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montera, R., Ficarola, F., Plotti, F. et al. The use of sealing hemostat patch (HEMOPATCH®) in laparotomic myomectomy: a prospective case–control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307, 1521–1528 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-06957-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-06957-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation