Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Adjunctive hemostatic agents in partial nephrectomy show no transfusion benefitAdding topical agents to kidney surgery does not reduce blood loss

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that adding hemostatic agents to renorrhaphy does not reduce transfusions; routine use is not supported.

This meta-analysis pooled data from 3408 adult patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for T1 renal tumors to evaluate whether adding topical hemostatic agents to renorrhaphy improves perioperative outcomes compared with renorrhaphy alone. The primary outcome was blood transfusion rate (BTR), with secondary outcomes including estimated blood loss (EBL), hemorrhagic complications (HC), and urinary leakage (UL).

For the primary outcome, the pooled relative risk for BTR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.59-1.57), indicating no statistically significant difference between groups. Similarly, hemorrhagic complications showed no significant difference (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40-1.35), and urinary leakage also showed no significant difference (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.56-3.28). Estimated blood loss could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity (I²=97.8%), with study-level differences ranging from -120 to +57 mL.

The authors emphasize that the absence of evidence of benefit is not evidence of absence. Wide confidence intervals and low certainty of evidence for most outcomes mean that a clinically relevant effect cannot be excluded. High heterogeneity in EBL further limits conclusions.

Given these findings, the routine use of adjunctive hemostatic agents is not supported by current evidence. Clinicians should weigh the lack of demonstrated benefit against potential costs and risks, though the analysis does not rule out benefit in specific subgroups or settings.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis extends prior coverage on partial nephrectomy techniques by addressing the specific role of hemostatic adjuncts. Prior coverage showed that robot-assisted partial nephrectomy offers comparable oncologic outcomes with favorable perioperative safety trends, and that robot-assisted radical nephrectomy reduces blood loss compared with laparoscopic surgery. The current finding of no significant transfusion benefit with hemostatic agents contrasts with the blood loss reductions seen with surgical approach modifications, suggesting that adjunctive agents may not add further benefit. It also complements prior cautions about limited discrimination of nephrometry scores for adverse outcomes, reinforcing that perioperative risk prediction remains challenging.

When surgeons perform a partial nephrectomy, they are removing part of a kidney while trying to keep the organ functional. A major concern during these surgeries is managing bleeding and preventing issues like urine leaks. Some doctors have used topical hemostatic agents—substances applied directly to a wound to stop bleeding—alongside standard stitching techniques called renorrhaphy.

A large review of 3,408 patients looked at whether adding these extra agents actually helped. The results showed no significant difference in blood transfusion rates or the occurrence of serious bleeding complications when comparing the two methods. Additionally, there was no measurable difference in how often urine leaked from the kidney after surgery.

While some differences were expected, the data for estimated blood loss was too inconsistent across different studies to draw a clear conclusion. Because the evidence is currently weak and the results are varied, the researchers noted that using these extra agents isn't proven to be better than standard stitching alone. For now, there is no clear reason to use them as a routine addition.

What this means for you:
Adding topical clotting agents to kidney surgery does not improve blood transfusion rates or reduce complications.

Common questions

Does using extra clotting agents reduce the need for blood transfusions?

The study of 3,408 patients found no significant difference in blood transfusion rates when comparing topical hemostatic agents combined with stitching to stitching alone. Because the evidence is currently weak and confidence intervals are wide, it is not proven that these extra agents provide a benefit.

Are there fewer complications when using these additional treatments?

The data showed no significant difference in hemorrhagic complications or urinary leakage between the two methods. Because of the low certainty of evidence and wide confidence intervals, researchers cannot confirm that extra agents offer any protective benefit during kidney surgery.

Is it safer to use these agents during a partial nephrectomy?

The study did not report specific adverse events or safety signals for the patients. However, because current evidence does not show a clear benefit over standard stitching alone, the routine use of these extra agents is not currently supported by the data.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 3,408
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
PURPOSE: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard of care for T1 renal tumors, offering oncological outcomes equivalent to radical nephrectomy while preserving renal function. Intraoperative hemostasis remains a critical challenge, as warm ischemia time is independently associated with postoperative renal functional decline. Topical hemostatic agents have been increasingly adopted as adjuncts to renorrhaphy; however, their incremental benefit over suture alone remains unestablished. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents combined with renorrhaphy versus renorrhaphy alone in patients undergoing PN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook, with prospective registration in PROSPERO (CRD420261396802). MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 15, 2026, for RCTs and comparative observational studies comparing hemostatic agents combined with renorrhaphy versus renorrhaphy alone in adult PN patients. The primary outcome was blood transfusion rate (BTR); secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), hemorrhagic complications (HC), and urinary leakage (UL). A random-effects model with REML estimation was used. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I V2; certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (2 RCTs, 13 observational) comprising 3,408 patients were included from 2,281 identified (1,265 screened after duplicate removal). No significant difference was observed for BTR (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.59-1.57; I = 44.7%; 95% prediction interval 0.24-3.90), HC (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.35; I = 47.6%; PI 0.14-3.83), or UL (RR 1.36; 95% CI 0.56-3.28; I = 0.0%; PI 0.45-4.09). EBL heterogeneity was considerable (I = 97.8%) and irreducible on leave-one-out (lowest I = 84.1%); it is therefore reported narratively, with study-level differences ranging from - 120 to + 57 mL. No publication bias was detected (Egger p = 0.598). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not demonstrate a benefit of adjunctive hemostatic agents over renorrhaphy alone. With wide intervals and low certainty for most outcomes, these data reflect an absence of evidence of benefit rather than evidence of absence, and a clinically relevant effect cannot be excluded. Routine use is not supported; adequately powered trials stratified by tumor complexity and agent class are warranted.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.