Evaluation of Hemostatic Agents in Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

Partial nephrectomy is a surgical procedure wherein a diseased segment of a kidney is surgically removed, leaving behind the remaining healthy kidney parenchyma. This surgical procedure is typically performed to remove mass lesions suspicious for malignancy. A major goal of partial nephrectomy is to spare as much renal function as possible by preserving the healthy portion of the kidney while removing only the pathologic portion of the kidney. Hemostatic agents (HA) are devices commonly used during robotic‐assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) due to the risk of bleeding posed by incising a highly vascular organ. The use of various HAs as part of the surgical technique for RALPN is well‐described. Potential benefits such as lower blood loss, lower rate of urine leak, and lower blood product transfusion rates have been suggested in small case series. However, larger prospective studies have failed to demonstrate these benefits of HAs. They report similar patient outcomes regardless of HA use. However, these studies are subject to selection bias given the lack of randomization, and they had a small relative number of partial nephrectomies performed without HAs. To the knowledge of the investigators, no randomized trials have addressed the use of HAs in RALPN. Randomized, controlled trials for partial hepatectomy and knee arthroplasty have shown no benefit when using hemostatic agents to control bleeding. At the home institution for this study, surgeons routinely use HAs in the resection bed during RALPN. Available, FDA approved, commercial agents include Floseal and Nu‐Knit®. Each unit of HA costs $150 ‐ $419 per unit, and often multiple units are used during a given procedure. The hospital is paid a set amount based on the patient's insurance for performing the procedure regardless of use of HA. The use of HAs therefore increases costs incurred by the hospital when performing these procedures. It is imperative to determine if this expenditure is justified. The primary aim of this study is to compare surgical outcomes in patients undergoing RALPN with and without the use of hemostatic agents. Given the small nature of and conflicting information from the aforementioned cohort studies, it is imperative to remove selection bias and perform a randomized comparison of HA use. This study will provide a much more definitive head‐to‐head comparison of the overall utility of HAs. Additionally, it may provide more information about differential patient selection for more appropriate and judicious use of HAs. No study has evaluated differential patient selection for HA use, and therefore any finding in this realm would be novel.