- Summary of the literature evaluating hemopatch® utilization in cranial neurosurgery.
| Author/year | Study type | Number of patients | Hemopatch® placement Site | CSF leak incidence | Related infection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nowak et al./201916 | Prospective observational study | 34 | Cranial | 5.9% | 2.9% |
| Schebesch et al. 201913 | Retrospective | 22 | Cranial | 4.5% | 4.5% |
| Diaz-Molina et al./202014 | Prospective compare observational study: Tisseel® vs Hemopatch® | 65: Tissel® 82: Hemopatch® | 97 Cranial (supratentorial 32 Cranial (infratentorial)18 Spinal | Tisseel® : 13.8% (3.6%) vs Hemopatch® : 3.6% (p < 0.05) Cranial (supratentorial): 5.1% Cranial (infratentorial): 15.6% Spinal: 11.11% | 8.2% |
| Montano et al./202010 | Prosepective observational study: Hemopatch® with fibrin glue | 22 | 8 Cranial | 0% | 0% |
| 14 Spinal | |||||
| Schebesch et al./202317 | Registry based Multicenter observational study | 147 | 123 Cranial | Cranial: 7.3% | 1.36% |
| 24 Spinal | Spinal: 8.3% | ||||
| Present study | Retrospective | 119 | Cranial | 1.7% | 0.84% |