Sealants may provide a solution for pulmonary air leakage (PAL), but their clinical application is debatable. For sealant comparison, standardized animal models are lacking. This systematic review aims to assess methodology and quality of animal models for PAL and sealant evaluation. All animal models investigating lung sealing devices (e.g., staplers, glues, energy devices) to prevent or treat PAL were retrieved systematically from Embase, Pubmed and Web of science. Methodological study characteristics, risk of bias, reporting quality and publication bias were assessed. A total of 71 studies were included (N = 75 experiments, N = 1659 animals). Six different species and 18 strains were described; 92% of experiments used healthy animals, disease models were used in only six studies. Lesions to produce PAL were heterogenous, and only 11 studies used a previously reported technique, encompassing N = 5 unique lesions. Clinically relevant outcomes were used in the minority of studies (imaging 16%, air leak 10.7%, air leak duration 4%). Reporting quality was poor, but revealed an upward trend per decade. Overall, high risk of bias was present, and only 18.7% used a negative control group. All but one study without control groups claimed positive outcomes (95.8%), in contrast to 84.3% using positive or negative control groups, which also concluded equivocal, adverse or inconclusive outcomes. In conclusion, animal studies evaluating sealants for prevention of PAL are heterogenous and of poor reporting quality. Using negative control groups, disease models and quantifiable outcomes seem important to increase validity and relevance. Further research is needed to reach consensus for model development and standardization.
AttaarATamVNasonKS.Risk factors for prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg2020;
271: 834–844. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000003560.
2.
OkerekeIMurthySCAlsterJM, et al.
Characterization and importance of air leak after lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg2005;
79: 1167–1173. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.08.069.
3.
YooAGhoshSKDankerW, et al.
Burden of air leak complications in thoracic surgery estimated using a national hospital billing database. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2017;
9: 373–383. DOI: 10.2147/ceor.S133830.
4.
BrunelliAXiumeFAl RefaiM, et al.
Air leaks after lobectomy increase the risk of empyema but not of cardiopulmonary complications: a case-matched analysis. Chest2006;
130: 1150–1156. DOI: 10.1378/chest.130.4.1150.
5.
LiangSIvanovicJGilbertS, et al.
Quantifying the incidence and impact of postoperative prolonged alveolar air leak after pulmonary resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013;
145: 948–954. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.08.044.
6.
SinghalSFerrarisVABridgesCR, et al.
Management of alveolar air leaks after pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg2010;
89: 1327–1335. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.09.020.
7.
AttaarALuketichJDSchuchertMJ, et al.
Prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection increases risk of noncardiac complications, readmission, and delayed hospital discharge: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Ann Surg2021;
273: 163–172. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000003191.
8.
VarelaGJimenezMFNovoaN, et al.
Estimating hospital costs attributable to prolonged air leak in pulmonary lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2005;
27: 329–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.005.
9.
BrunelliAChapmanKPompiliC, et al.
Ninety-day hospital costs associated with prolonged air leak following lung resection. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2020;
31: 507–512. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa140.
10.
BrunelliABölükbasSFalcozPE, et al.
Exploring consensus for the optimal sealant use to prevent air leak following lung surgery: a modified Delphi survey from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2020;
59: 1265–1271. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa428.
11.
Belda-SanchisJSerra-MitjansMIglesias SentisM, et al.
Surgical sealant for preventing air leaks after pulmonary resections in patients with lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010: Cd003051. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003051.pub3.
12.
MalapertGHannaHAPagesPB, et al.
Surgical sealant for the prevention of prolonged air leak after lung resection: meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg2010;
90: 1779–1785. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.07.033.
13.
McGuireALYeeJ.Clinical outcomes of polymeric sealant use in pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Dis2018;
10: S3728–S3739. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.10.48.
14.
ZhouJLyuMPangL, et al.
Efficiency and safety of TachoSil® in the treatment of postoperative air leakage following pulmonary surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Jpn J Clin Oncol2019;
49: 862–869. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyz076.
15.
SinghalSShragerJB.Should buttresses and sealants be used to manage pulmonary parenchymal air leaks?J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2010;
140: 1220–1225. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.06.039.
16.
MacchiariniPWainJAlmyS, et al.
Experimental and clinical evaluation of a new synthetic, absorbable sealant to reduce air leaks in thoracic operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1999;
117: 751–758. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5223(99)70296-5.
17.
McCarthyPMTrastekVFBellDG, et al.
The effectiveness of fibrin glue sealant for reducing experimental pulmonary air leak. Ann Thorac Surg1988;
45: 203–205. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(10)62438-1.
18.
LewisKMSpaziererDSlezakP, et al.
Swelling, sealing, and hemostatic ability of a novel biomaterial: a polyethylene glycol-coated collagen pad. J Biomater Appl2014;
29: 780–788. DOI: 10.1177/0885328214545500.
19.
AnnabiNZhangYNAssmannA, et al.
Engineering a highly elastic human protein-based sealant for surgical applications. Sci Transl Med2017;
9: eaai7466 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aai7466.
20.
ElvinCMVuocoloTBrownleeAG, et al.
A highly elastic tissue sealant based on photopolymerised gelatin. Biomaterials2010;
31: 8323–8331. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.032.
21.
ArakiMTaoHNakajimaN, et al.
Development of new biodegradable hydrogel glue for preventing alveolar air leakage. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2007;
134: 1241–1248. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.020.
22.
BosmansJMoossdorffMAl-TaherM, et al.
International consensus statement regarding the use of animal models for research on anastomoses in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Int J Colorectal Dis2016;
31: 1021–1030. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2550-5.
23.
van der WorpHBHowellsDWSenaES, et al.
Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?PLOS Med2010;
7: e1000245. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245.
24.
CárdenesNSembratJNodaK, et al.
Human ex vivo lung perfusion: a novel model to study human lung diseases. Sci Rep2021;
11: 490. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79434-4.
25.
HorvathMAHuLMuellerT, et al.
An organosynthetic soft robotic respiratory simulator. APL Bioeng2020;
4: 026108. DOI: 10.1063/1.5140760.
26.
KlassenCEckertCEWongJ, et al.
Ex vivo modeling of perioperative air leaks in porcine lungs. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2018;
65: 2827–2836. DOI: 10.1109/tbme.2018.2819625.
27.
Ritskes‐HoitingaMLeenaarsMAveyM, et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2014;
28: ED000078. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000078.
28.
HooijmansCRTillemaALeenaarsM, et al.
Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Lab Anim2010;
44: 170–175. DOI: 10.1258/la.2010.009117.
29.
YauwSTWeverKEHoesseiniA, et al.
Systematic review of experimental studies on intestinal anastomosis. Br J Surg2015;
102: 726–734. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9776.
30.
Percie du SertNHurstVAhluwaliaA, et al.
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol2020;
18: e3000410. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410.
31.
HooijmansCRRoversMMde VriesRB, et al.
SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol2014;
14: 43. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43.
32.
KanzakiMSekineHTakagiR, et al.
Bioartificial pleura using allogenic cell sheet for closing of lung air leakage. JTCVS Tech2020;
4: 336–340. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjtc.2020.09.024.
33.
KanzakiMTakagiRIsakaT, et al.
Off-the-shelf cell sheets as a pleural substitute for closing visceral pleural injuries. Biopreserv Biobank2019;
17: 163–170. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2018.0105.
34.
KanzakiMYamatoMYangJ, et al.
Dynamic sealing of lung air leaks by the transplantation of tissue engineered cell sheets. Biomaterials2007;
28: 4294–4302. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.06.009.
35.
BalakrishnanBPayanamULaurentA, et al.
Efficacy evaluation of anin situforming tissue adhesive hydrogel as sealant for lung and vascular injury. Biomed Mater2021;
16: 044106. DOI: 10.1088/1748-605X/abfbbf.
36.
GikaMKawamuraMIzumiY, et al.
The short-term efficacy of fibrin glue combined with absorptive sheet material in visceral pleural defect repair. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2007;
6: 12–15. DOI: 10.1510/icvts.2006.139436.
37.
KawaiNSuzukiSNaitoH, et al.
Sealing effect of cross-linked gelatin glue in the rat lung air leak model. Ann Thorac Surg2016;
102: 282–286. 2016/05/23. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.038.
38.
RangerWRHalpinDSawhneyAS, et al.
Pneumostasis of experimental air leaks with a new photopolymerized synthetic tissue sealant. Am Surg1997;
63: 788–795.
39.
NomoriHHorioHMorinagaS, et al.
Gelatin-resorcinol-formaldehyde-glutaraldehyde glue for sealing pulmonary air leaks during thoracoscopic operation. Ann Thorac Surg1999;
67: 212–216. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(98)01184-9.
40.
ServaisABValenzuelaCDKienzleA, et al.
Functional mechanics of a pectin-based pleural sealant after lung injury. Tissue Eng Part A2018;
24: 695–702. DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2017.0299.
41.
BuyukkaleSCitakNIsgorucuO, et al.
The effect of sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethyl cellulose membrane in the prevention of parenchymal air leaks: an experimental and manometric study in rats. Tuberk Toraks2017;
65: 265–270. DOI: 10.5578/tt.9681.
42.
GigauriVSAndrianovNGGot'eSV, et al.
[Hemostasis and hermetic sealing of the parenchyma in operations on the lungs]. Voen Med Zh1975: 23–25.
43.
PotichaSMMacaladadFLewisFJ.The control of air leaks following subsegmental pulmonary resections. Surg Gynecol Obstet1965;
120: 803–809.
44.
KauselHWLindskogGE.The healing of raw lung surfaces after experimental segmental resection. J Thorac Surg1955;
29: 197–211.
45.
WilderRJPlayforthHBryantM, et al.
The use of plastic adhesive in pulmonary surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1963;
46: 576–588.
46.
NuchprayoonCTamayoAGReimannAF, et al.
The use and tissue reaction of a biologic adhesive in the prevention of air leak following a transection of the lung. Dis Chest1968;
53: 445–452. DOI: 10.1378/chest.53.4.445.
47.
AttaarAWingerDGLuketichJD, et al.
A clinical prediction model for prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2017;
153: 690–699.e692. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.10.003.
48.
MoonDHParkCHKangDY, et al.
Significance of the lobe-specific emphysema index to predict prolonged air leak after anatomical segmentectomy. PLoS One2019;
14: e0224519. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224519.
49.
DeCampMMBlackstoneEHNaunheimKS, et al.
Patient and surgical factors influencing air leak after lung volume reduction surgery: lessons learned from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. Ann Thorac Surg2006;
82: 197–206; discussion 206–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.02.050.
RiveraCBernardAFalcozPE, et al.
Characterization and prediction of prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection: a nationwide study setting up the index of prolonged air leak. Ann Thorac Surg2011;
92: 1062–1068; discussion 1068. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.04.033.
52.
MentzerSJTsudaALoringSH.Pleural mechanics and the pathophysiology of air leaks. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018;
155: 2182–2189. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.12.062.
53.
PompiliCMiserocchiG.Air leak after lung resection: pathophysiology and patients' implications. J Thorac Dis2016;
8: S46–S54. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.11.08.
54.
ZaracaFBrunelliAPipitoneMD, et al.
A Delphi consensus report from the “Prolonged Air Leak: A Survey” study group on prevention and management of postoperative air leaks after minimally invasive anatomical resections. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2022;
62: ezac211 DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac211.
55.
BrunelliASalatiMPompiliC, et al.
Intraoperative air leak measured after lobectomy is associated with postoperative duration of air leak. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2017;
52: 963–968. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx105.
56.
KimWHLeeHCRyuHG, et al.
Intraoperative ventilatory leak predicts prolonged air leak after lung resection: a retrospective observational study. PLoS One2017;
12: e0187598. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187598.
57.
CharanJKanthariaND.How to calculate sample size in animal studies?J Pharmacol Pharmacother2013;
4: 303–306. DOI: 10.4103/0976-500x.119726.
58.
RooneyMBMehlMMonnetE.Intercostal thoracotomy closure: transcostal sutures as a less painful alternative to circumcostal suture placement. Vet Surg2004;
33: 209–213. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04031.x.
59.
de VriesRBWeverKEAveyMT, et al.
The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J2014;
55: 427–437. DOI: 10.1093/ilar/ilu043.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
