Table 9.

Urologic procedures

Author and year	Comparator and patients per arm (n)	Primary endpoint	Principal results
Gill 2005 [26]	Floseal® (63)	Reducing haemorrhagic complications	NS differences in the mean warm ischaemia time (p = 0.55), blood loss (p = 0.36), the operating time, or the length of hospital stay. Floseal® had significantly fewer overall complications (p = 0.008).
	No Floseal® (laparoscopic suturing) (68)
Guzzo 2009 [27]	Floseal® (19)	Operating and warm ischaemia times, blood loss, postoperative transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, and costs	Similar safety and efficacy for the two alternatives, and Gelfoam® was less expensive than Floseal®.
	Gelfoam® (21)
Koni 2012 [28]	Floseal® (11)	Differences in complications	The use of haemostatic agents significantly reduced postoperative complications. Among haemostatic agents, TachoSil® provided the best benefits in terms of postoperative complications.
	Tachosil® (25)
	No use of haemostatic agents (7)
Nogueira 2008 [29]	Floseal® (25)	Haemostasis and blood loss	The ischaemia time (p = 0.148) and blood loss (p = 0.518) were comparable between the two groups.
	Surgiflo® (10)
Pace 2010 [30]	Floseal® (15)	Efficacy in achieving haemostasis	Statistically higher rates of successful haemostasis and a shorter time to haemostasis were observed in the Floseal® group (p < 0.001 both).
	Infrared-sapphire coagulator (ISC) (15)
Waldert 2011 [31]	Floseal® (32)	Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Floseal® in preventing lymphocele development after pelvic lymphadenectomy	Floseal® may be effective in reducing the likelihood of lymphocele formation after pelvic lymphadenectomy. Data suggest that Floseal® is cost effective because it reduces the need for diagnostic TC scans, laparoscopic fenestration, and subsequent prolonged hospitalisation.
	Without Floseal® (110)