The safety and efficacy of anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponge in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article information

Asian Spine J. 2024;18(6):875-888
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 December 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0271
1Departement of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Pelita Harapan University, Tangerang, Indonesia
2Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Pelita Harapan University, Tangerang, Indonesia
3Departement of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Pelita Harapan University, Tangerang, Indonesia
Corresponding author: Alexander Erick Purnomo, Faculty of Medicine, Pelita Harapan University, Jl. Jenderal Sudirman No.20, Tangerang, Indonesia, Tel: +62-21-54210130, Fax: +62-21-54210130, E-mail: alexandererick771@gmail.com
Received 2024 July 6; Revised 2024 August 29; Accepted 2024 September 9.

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges in spine surgeries. Gelatin sponges are increasingly used as delivery vehicles for anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs during spine surgeries. However, concerns about their safety and efficacy persist. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify original research articles investigating the use of anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges in spine surgeries from 2006 to 2024. Case reports, case series, animal studies, cadaveric studies, and abstract-only articles were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (Cochrane, UK) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane Review Manager Web. Thirteen studies (six RCTs, six cohort studies, and one case-control study) were included. Pooled analysis revealed a significant decrease in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for back pain (mean difference [MD], −0.62; 95% confidence intervals [CI], −0.78 to −0.46; p<0.00001), VAS score for leg pain (MD, −0.60; 95% CI, −0.87 to −0.34; p<0.00001), and length of hospital stay (MD, −0.99; 95% CI, −1.68 to −0.31; p=0.0004). Additionally, there was a significant increase in the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (MD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.00 to 1.96; p=0.05). However, no significant difference was observed in the disability index (MD, −0.59; 95% CI, −1.88 to −0.70; p=0.37). The use of anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges during spine surgeries decreases postoperative back pain and leg pain, reduces length of stay, and improves neurological function. Larger, prospective, randomized trials are required to obtain more robust evidence.

Introduction

The prevalence of spine surgery has seen a notable increase globally. A multicenter study in Japan, involving nine hospitals, reported a 2.4-fold increase in spinal surgeries from 2003 to 2017, with a 2.6-fold increase in surgeries for degenerative conditions [1]. Similarly, a study in South Africa indicated a 26% increase in spine surgeries over the past decade [2]. Despite these advancements, chronic pain post-surgery or failed back surgery syndrome remains a significant issue, affecting nearly 40% of patients. This persistent pain is often attributed to structural and non-structural factors, including postoperative changes in the local microenvironment, maladaptive sensory nervous system changes, glial cell activation, and inflammation. Surgical handling of the nerve roots or dorsal root ganglia can induce fibrosis, leading to late-onset pain [3,4].

Localized and targeted delivery of anti-inflammatory agents can mitigate postoperative pain without the risks associated with systemic administration of anti-inflammatory analgesics or opioids. Although various methods, including epidural injections, irrigation, or intravenous administration of anti-inflammatory drugs have been explored, the use of gelatin sponges as a delivery vehicle for anti-inflammatory agents in spine surgery remains understudied and warrants further research [5,6]. Gelatin sponges, widely used in spinal surgeries for their hemostatic properties, also help prevent adhesions between neural elements and soft tissues [7]. Recent studies have investigated the use of gelatin sponges impregnated with anti-inflammatory analgesics to deliver localized anti-inflammatory effects directly at the surgical site, yielding varied results.

Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges in spine surgery. Our findings may help address a significant gap in spinal surgery literature by synthesizing the available evidence of their potential benefits in controlling postoperative pain and reducing inflammation.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [8]. The review protocol is registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration no., CRD42024556146).

Data sources and search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using the following biomedical databases: PubMed, Europe PMC, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The search strategy included keywords such as “anti-inflammatory gelatin sponge,” “gelfoam,” “postoperative pain,” “outcomes,” and “spine surgery.” These terms were combined using Boolean operators “AND” and “OR.” Table 1 provides a detailed list of the search terms used.

Search strategy for electronical databases

Eligibility criteria

The selection of articles was based on the PICO framework: (1) Population: patients undergoing spine surgeries; (2) Intervention: use of anti-inflammatory (corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs])-impregnated gelatin sponges during spine surgery; (3) Control: patients not receiving anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges or placebo sponges (e.g., receiving normal saline); and (4) Outcomes: pain scores (back pain and leg pain), disability index, neurological function, and length of hospital stay.

Studies with irrelevant outcomes, review articles, case reports, case series, animal studies, cadaveric studies, and studies not available in full-text format were excluded.

Study selection and data extraction

Two authors (A.P., Y.Y.) independently conducted the literature search and data extraction. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion with two additional authors (J.T., Y.S.). Data were tabulated using Google Sheets (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) and Microsoft Excel 2019 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). Extracted data included study characteristics (sample sizes, surgical types, mean or median age, drug mixtures used in gelatin sponges, and length of hospital stay), and outcomes such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for leg pain and back pain at various postoperative intervals (preoperative, 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months), disability indices such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and intervention-related complications.

Risk of bias assessment

The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool (Cochrane, London, UK) was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for nonrandomized studies [9,10].

Outcomes

The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by VAS scores for both back pain and leg pain. Secondary outcomes included disability indices (ODI and NDI), JOA scores, and adverse events associated with the use of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges. Additional evaluations of each outcome reported were performed using the Grading’s of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment [11].

Statistical analysis

Meta-analyses were performed using Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan) Web (Cochrane). Heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the chi-square test (p≤0.05 considered significant) and the I2 statistic. In case of substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥50%), the random-effects model was used for pooled analysis. For continuous variables, mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the inverse variance method. All p≤0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance.

Results

Literature search results

The schematic illustration of the study selection process is depicted in the PRISMA diagram (Fig. 1). A total of 472 records were retrieved through database searches. After removing 90 duplicates, 382 articles underwent title and abstract screening, resulting in the exclusion of 360 articles. The full texts of 22 articles were assessed, following which eight articles were excluded due to duplicates (n=6), irrelevant outcome measures (n=1), and abstract-only publication (n=1). Finally, 13 articles were included in the analysis [1224].

Fig. 1

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram for study selection strategy.

Characteristics of the included studies

The characteristics of the 13 included studies are summarized in Table 2. These studies comprised six RCTs, two retrospective cohorts, four prospective cohorts, and one case-control study, with a combined study population of 1,323 patients. All studies involved the intraoperative use of anti-inflammatory-soaked gelatin sponges (gelfoam) during various spine surgeries. The publication dates ranged from 2006–2008 and 2017–2024. The surgical procedures in the included studies varied, with five of the 13 studies focusing on minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). The anti-inflammatory agents used included corticosteroids like triamcinolone acetonide, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone. Notably, Du et al. [1215] reported using a cocktail of dexamethasone, ropivacaine, and vitamin B12 in the gelatin sponge, while Kumari et al. [19] in 2018 used a mixture of levobupivacaine and dexamethasone. Most studies compared the anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges with placebos such as normal saline-soaked sponges.

Demographics of included study

Risk of bias and GRADE assessment

All the included observational studies had an NOS score of 7–8, indicating a low risk of bias (Table 3). The risk of bias in RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RoB 2.0 tool (Fig. 2). Among the six RCTs, five showed a low risk of bias, while one presented some concerns due to issues related to randomization and missing outcome data. The summary of the GRADE assessment is shown in Table 4. Based on the GRADE assessment, three outcomes (VAS for back pain, leg pain, and length of stay) showed moderate quality in results, as there were no serious publication biases but had serious inconsistency. However, two outcomes (disability index and JOA scoring) had low quality, because of serious publication biases and inconsistency in results.

Newcastle-Ottawa Score for assessment of observational studies

Fig. 2

Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 (Cochrane, London, UK) plot for randomized studies.

Summary of GRADE assessment

Meta-analysis results

Visual Analog Scale score for back pain

The pooled analysis of VAS scores for back pain (Fig. 3) revealed that the use of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges significantly decreased postoperative VAS scores for back pain (MD, −0.62; 95% CI, −0.78 to −0.46; p<0.00001), with significant heterogeneity among the studies (χ2=278.61, degrees of freedom [df]=40, p<0.00001, I2=86%). Subgroup analyses indicated significantly lower VAS scores in the treatment group at 1 day (MD, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.16 to −0.52; p<0.00001), 2 days (MD, −1.03; 95% CI, −1.54 to −0.51; p<0.0001), 1 week (MD, −1.16; 95% CI, −1.53 to −0.78; p<0.00001), 1 month (MD, −0.35; 95% CI, −0.68 to −0.01; p=0.04), and 3 months postoperatively (MD, −0.47; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.38; p<0.00001), with no significant differences preoperatively (MD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.08; p=0.14).

Fig. 3

Forest plot for Visual Analog Scale in back pain. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom. (Continued on next page.)

Visual Analog Scale score for leg pain

The pooled analysis for VAS scores for leg pain also showed significant reductions (MD, −0.60; 95% CI, −0.87 to −0.34; p<0.00001), with a significant heterogeneity among the studies (χ2=152.93, df=24, p<0.00001, I2=84%) (Fig. 4). The treatment group showed significantly lower VAS scores at 1 day (MD, −0.66; 95% CI, −1.11 to −0.21; p=0.004), 2 days (MD, −1.13; 95% CI, −2.16 to −0.10; p=0.03), and 1 week postoperatively (MD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.09 to −0.76; p<0.00001). No significant differences were found preoperatively (MD, −0.07; 95% CI, −0.30 to 0.16; p=0.55), at 1 month (MD, −0.23; 95% CI, −0.58 to −0.12; p=0.2), or 3 months (MD, −0.23; 95% CI, −0.58 to −0.12; p=0.2).

Fig. 4

Forest plot for Visual Analog Scale in leg pain. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom.

Disability index

The pooled analysis of disability index scores showed no significant differences between the treatment and control groups (MD, −0.59; 95% CI, −1.88 to 0.70; p=0.37) (Fig. 5). Subgroup analyses also indicated no significant differences preoperatively (MD, 0.35; 95% CI, −2.23 to 2.94; p=0.79), at 1 month (MD, −0.67; 95% CI, −2.68 to 1.34; p=0.51), or 3 months postoperatively (MD, −0.17; 95% CI, −3.64 to 3.31; p=0.93).

Fig. 5

Forest plot for disability index. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom.

Japanese Orthopedic Association score

The pooled analysis of JOA scores indicated a significant improvement in the treatment group (MD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.00 to 1.96; p=0.05), with a significant heterogeneity among the studies (χ2=57.59, df=5, p<0.00001, I2=91%) (Fig. 6). Subgroup analyses showed significantly higher JOA scores in the treatment group at 3 days (MD, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.23; p=0.01) and 6 days postoperatively (MD, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.87 to 3.12; p<0.00001). No significant differences were observed in the preoperative JOA level (MD, −0.21; 95% CI, −0.56 to 0.14; p=0.24).

Fig. 6

Forest plot for Japanese Orthopedic Association score. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom.

Length of hospital stay

The pooled analysis of hospital length of stay demonstrated a significantly shorter hospital stay in the treatment group (MD, −0.99; 95% CI, −1.68 to −0.31; p=0.004), with significant heterogeneity among the studies (χ2=71.23, df=4, p<0.00001, I2=94%) (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7

Forest plot for length of stay (days). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Complications and adverse events

Table 5 summarizes the complications and adverse events reported in the included studies. Common adverse events included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), headache, surgical site infection, and urinary retention. One study reported bilateral limb weakness that resolved within 24 hours and hypotension. Another study reported deep vein thrombosis in one patient which resolved within 6 months. Two studies reported reoperations and revision surgeries.

Summary of adverse events of included studies

Discussion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the use of anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponge can significantly reduce postoperative back and leg pain in patients undergoing spine surgeries. Additionally, corticosteroid-impregnated gelatin sponges were found to improve JOA scores and reduce the length of hospital stay compared to the control group. However, there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups with respect to disability indices (ODI and NDI). Our synthesis of data did reveal some complications and adverse events, including PONV, surgical site infection, urinary retention, hypotension, bilateral limb weakness, and deep vein thrombosis.

Our results are consistent with a previous meta-analysis conducted by Ranguis et al. [25] in 2010, which examined the effectiveness of epidural steroids in lumbar spine surgeries across 12 RCTs. Their study found that perioperative epidural steroids significantly reduced postoperative back pain for 12–24 hours and radicular pain for up to 1 week, as well as shortened hospital stays. Ranguis et al. [25] also reported a significantly lower risk of not returning to full-time work in the steroid group, an outcome that was not assessed in our study.

Additional research, such as the study by Geisler et al. [26] in 2022, has demonstrated the effectiveness of postoperative multimodal pain management, including NSAIDs, epidural steroids, and other analgesic agents, in significantly reducing pain scores and decreasing the need for opioid rescue analgesics. However, their study did not specifically investigate the use of anti-inflammatory agents impregnated within absorbable gelatin sponges, which is the focus of our meta-analysis [26].

Wilson-Smith et al. [27] in 2018 conducted a meta-analysis of 17 RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroids post-microdiscectomy and laminectomy. Their analysis revealed that epidural steroids significantly reduced postoperative VAS scores at 1 and 3 months postoperatively but did not significantly impact VAS scores within the first 24 hours. They also compared different types of epidural steroids, noting that dexamethasone and methylprednisolone were more effective than triamcinolone acetonide. Our study yielded comparable findings regarding shorter length of hospital stay. However, their study also measured postoperative analgesia use, which was not assessed in our meta-analysis [27].

Our meta-analysis found no significant differences in disability indices (ODI and NDI) between the intervention and control groups. The lack of significant changes may be attributable to the included studies’ findings showing no significant relationship between the disability indices in pooled analyses. However, our pooled analysis did indicate improvements in JOA scores in patients treated with anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges compared to controls, suggesting enhanced postoperative neurological function [28].

Our meta-analysis revealed that anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges can significantly reduce postoperative back and leg pain in patients undergoing spine surgeries, including MIS-TLIF. The inclusion of several studies focusing on MIS-TLIF, a surgical approach gaining popularity due to its minimally invasive nature, highlights the potential benefits of this intervention in this surgical context.

MIS-TLIF was the most commonly performed procedure in the studies included in our meta-analysis. Many studies on MIS-TLIF have investigated multimodal analgesia approaches for reducing postoperative pain and improving functional outcomes. The use of corticosteroid-impregnated gelatin sponges in these surgeries has shown promising results, particularly in reducing postoperative pain and improving early functional recovery. This is consistent with the findings of our meta-analysis, which showed that corticosteroid-impregnated gelatin sponges significantly reduced postoperative back and leg pain and improved JOA scores, reflecting enhanced neurological function in MIS-TLIF surgery [1215,22].

Among the 13 studies included in our meta-analysis, several focused specifically on MIS-TLIF. These studies consistently reported significant reductions in pain scores and shorter hospital stays with use of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges. For instance, Du et al. [12] in 2018 and Du et al. [13] in 2021 demonstrated a notable decrease in VAS scores for both back and leg pain, as well as an improved length of stay in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF. Similarly, Haws et al. [22] in 2019 reported consistent pain reduction with the use of methylprednisolone-impregnated sponges during MIS-TLIF procedures.

Anti-inflammatory agents, particularly corticosteroids, are known to reduce postoperative pain by inhibiting inflammatory responses and preventing the secretion of neuropeptides that stimulate nerve fibers. Corticosteroids, either administered locally or systemically, have been effective in managing postoperative pain, recognized as a persistent issue termed “failed back syndrome [2931].”

In some cases, corticosteroids have been used in combination with local anesthetic drugs (e.g., ropivacaine, bupivacaine, levobupivacaine), dexmedetomidine, and vitamin B12. These combinations can enhance the safety and effectiveness of pain management strategies [1214,20,21]. Gelatin sponges offer an effective delivery system for targeted drug administration, allowing for sustained release and increased local concentrations of therapeutic agents. This enhances the efficacy and duration of drug action, particularly in the surrounding sinuvertebral nerves, which are known to contribute to low back pain and lower extremity neuralgia. In the context of spine surgeries, gelatin sponges can be conveniently placed directly over the nerve root, leveraging the easy access to epidural space [12,20,32,33]. The consistency of findings across MIS-TLIF studies in this meta-analysis suggests that anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges may be particularly well-suited for this patient population. The unique technical challenges and postoperative concerns associated with MIS-TLIF, such as minimizing tissue disruption and managing inflammation in a confined surgical area, make the localized delivery of anti-inflammatory agents via gelatin sponges an attractive solution that can enhance patient outcomes [1214,22].

However, there are certain pitfalls associated with the use of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges, including risks associated with local anesthetic penetration into the dura mater, such as hypotension and vomiting. Therefore, the use of gelatin sponge is strictly prohibited if dural rupture is suspected during the operation [12,13,20,21]. To mitigate this risk, some spine surgeons employ a technique involving the placement of artificial dura mater attached to the surface of the dura mater, followed by the application of gelatin sponge impregnated with anti-inflammatory drugs around the target nerve roots. This approach prevents nerve root adhesion and slows the effect of the spread of the drug to the dural space [12,13]. Additionally, gelatin sponge-induced mass effect can cause postoperative paresis, emphasizing the need for careful surgical preparation and technique [7].

The strengths of our meta-analysis include the inclusion of recent studies (2017–2024) and a focus on the use of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges in spine surgery, an area not extensively covered in previous meta-analyses. We also included additional outcome measures, such as JOA scores and disability indices.

Limitations of our study include heterogeneity among the included studies, variations in drug mixtures used in gelatin sponges, small sample sizes, and inconsistent reporting of outcome measures. Future research should aim to standardize these variables to improve the robustness and applicability of findings.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges are an effective adjunct in spine surgeries, reducing postoperative pain, shortening hospital stays, and improving neurological function. Gelatin sponges offer a distinct advantage for delivering anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in spine surgeries due to their ability to absorb multiple drugs, prevent drug dilution, and prolong the duration of action and therapeutic effects. However, spine surgeons must be aware of potential adverse effects, such as dural compression caused by swollen sponges, although this is rare. While this meta-analysis supports the broader application of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges in various spine surgeries, the promising results from MIS-TLIF-specific studies indicate the need for further research on this subgroup. Future studies should investigate the optimal dosage and composition of drugs used in gelatin sponges for MIS-TLIF patients or compare outcomes between MIS-TLIF and other surgical techniques to identify the most beneficial contexts for this intervention. We recommend further large-scale, prospective trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gelatin sponges as a delivery method for corticosteroids and NSAIDs in spine surgeries.

Key Points

  • Anti-inflammatory-impregnated gelatin sponges are effective in improving postoperative outcomes of spine surgeries.

  • The meta-analysis exclusively focused on the use of anti-inflammatory gelatin sponges in spine surgery, an aspect not extensively covered in previous meta-analyses.

  • Gelatin sponges are an effective delivery method, prolonging the release, elevating local drug concentrations, and enhancing therapeutic effect in the surrounding sinuvertebral nerves.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Authors Contributions

Conception and design: AEP, JFLT. Data acquisition: AEP, YYEA. Analysis of data: AEP, YYEA. Drafting of the manuscript: AEP, YYEA. Critical revision: JFLT, YMTS. Obtaining funding: not Applicable. Administrative support: not applicable. Supervision: JFLT, YMTS. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

References

1. Kobayashi K, Sato K, Kato F, et al. Trends in the numbers of spine surgeries and spine surgeons over the past 15 years. Nagoya J Med Sci 2022;84:155–62.
2. Mann TN, Dunn RN, Vlok AJ, Davis JH. Incidence of spine surgery in the South African private healthcare sector: ten-year trends within a large open medical scheme. Eur Spine J 2023;32:3015–22.
3. Alshammari HS, Alshammari AS, Alshammari SA, Ahamed SS. Prevalence of chronic pain after spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus 2023;15:e41841.
4. Wu Q, Cui X, Guan LC, et al. Chronic pain after spine surgery: insights into pathogenesis, new treatment, and preventive therapy. J Orthop Translat 2023;42:147–59.
5. Arirachakaran A, Siripaiboonkij M, Pairuchvej S, et al. Comparative outcomes of epidural steroids versus placebo after lumbar discectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2018;28:1589–99.
6. Hu A, Gu X, Guan X, Fan G, He S. Epidural versus intravenous steroids application following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e0654.
7. Nallakumarasamy A, Jain M, Panigrahi S, Sahoo A, Naik S. Gelatin sponge-induced early onset quadriparesis after the posterior decompression for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of a posterior longitudinal ligament: a case report. J Orthop Case Rep 2022;12:70–3.
8. PRISMA statement [Internet] [place unknown]: PRISMA; c2024. [cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org.
9. RoB 2: a revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials [Internet] London: Cochrane; [cited 2024 Jun 20]. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials.
10. Gierisch JM, Beadles C, Shapiro A, et al. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale coding manual for cohort studies. In : Gierisch JM, Beadles C, Shapiro A, et al, eds. Health disparities in quality indicators of healthcare among adults with mental illness [Internet] Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2014. [cited 2024 Jun 20]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299087/.
11. Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med 2013;6:50–4.
12. Du JP, Fan Y, Hao DJ, Huang YF, Zhang JN, Yuan LH. Application of gelatin sponge impregnated with a mixture of 3 drugs to intraoperative nerve root block to promote early postoperative recovery of lumbar disc herniation. World Neurosurg 2018;114:e1168–73.
13. Du J, Yang J, Yan L, et al. Intraoperative anti-inflammatory drugs combined with no drainage after MIS-TLIF in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: an RCT. J Orthop Surg Res 2021;16:20.
14. Du JP, Wang XH, Shan LQ, et al. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion combined with gelatin sponge impregnated with dexamethasone and no drainage tube after surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Orthop Surg 2021;13:1077–85.
15. Du JP, Fan Y, Liu JJ, Zhang JN, Chang Liu S, Hao D. Application of gelatin sponge impregnated with a mixture of 3 drugs to intraoperative nerve root block combined with robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: a clinical observation including 96 patients. World Neurosurg 2017;108:791–7.
16. Kim TK, Yu HK, Oh SK, Kim YM, Shim DM. Use of an epidural steroid sponge for postoperative pain control in lumbar discectomy. J Korean Soc Spine Surg 2019;26:50–5.
17. Shin DA, Gong TS, Shin DG, Kwon CY, Kim HI. Preliminary study on effectiveness of dexamethasone-soaked gelatin sponges for reducing pain after lumbar microdiscectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2006;39:11–5.
18. Tavanaei R, Ahmadi P, Malekipour B, et al. Effects of local intraoperative epidural use of triamcinolone acetonide-soaked Gelfoam on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;37:476–84.
19. Kumari K, Kamal M, Singariya G, Kishan R, Garg S, Thanvi S. Effect of epidural levobupivacaine with or without dexamethasone soaked in gelfoam for postoperative analgesia after lumbar laminectomy: a double blind, randomised, controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth 2018;62:509–15.
20. Yang JS, Liu KX, Chu L, et al. Cocktail treatment with a gelatin sponge impregnated with ropivacaine, dexamethasone, and vitamin B12 promotes early postoperative recovery after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a retrospective, case-controlled study. Pain Physician 2020;23:E211–8.
21. Zou P, Zhang X, Zhang R, et al. The feasibility and safety of cocktail treatment of triple anti-inflammatory agents loaded with gelatin sponge promotes early recovery after posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy. J Orthop Surg Res 2022;17:290.
22. Haws BE, Khechen B, Patel DV, et al. Impact of local steroid application in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2018;30:222–7.
23. Modi H, Chung KJ, Yoon HS, Yoo HS, Yoo JH. Local application of low-dose Depo-Medrol is effective in reducing immediate postoperative back pain. Int Orthop 2009;33:737–43.
24. Song H, Edwards C 2nd, Curto R, et al. Does epidural corticosteroid application during spinal surgery reduce postoperative pain?: an adjunct to multimodal analgesia. Clin Spine Surg 2024;37:E354–63.
25. Ranguis SC, Li D, Webster AC. Perioperative epidural steroids for lumbar spine surgery in degenerative spinal disease: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:745–57.
26. Geisler A, Zachodnik J, Koppen K, Chakari R, Bech-Azeddine R. Postoperative pain treatment after spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Pain Rep 2022;7:e1005.
27. Wilson-Smith A, Chang N, Lu VM, et al. Epidural steroids at closure after microdiscectomy/laminectomy for reduction of postoperative analgesia: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2018;110:e212–21.
28. Kato S, Oshima Y, Oka H, et al. Comparison of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and modified JOA (mJOA) score for the assessment of cervical myelopathy: a multicenter observational study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123022.
29. Chou R, Pinto RZ, Fu R, et al. Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;10:CD012450.
30. Cronstein BN, Kimmel SC, Levin RI, Martiniuk F, Weissmann G. A mechanism for the antiinflammatory effects of corticosteroids: the glucocorticoid receptor regulates leukocyte adhesion to endothelial cells and expression of endothelial-leukocyte adhesion molecule 1 and intercellular adhesion molecule 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:9991–5.
31. Coutinho AE, Chapman KE. The anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects of glucocorticoids, recent developments and mechanistic insights. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2011;335:2–13.
32. Raoul S, Faure A, Robert R, et al. Role of the sinu-vertebral nerve in low back pain and anatomical basis of therapeutic implications. Surg Radiol Anat 2003;24:366–71.
33. Blond S, Mertens P, David R, Roulaud M, Rigoard P. From “mechanical” to “neuropathic” back pain concept in FBSS patients: a systematic review based on factors leading to the chronification of pain (part C). Neurochirurgie 2015;61(Suppl 1):S45–56.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram for study selection strategy.

Fig. 2

Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 (Cochrane, London, UK) plot for randomized studies.

Fig. 3

Forest plot for Visual Analog Scale in back pain. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom. (Continued on next page.)

Fig. 4

Forest plot for Visual Analog Scale in leg pain. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom.

Fig. 5

Forest plot for disability index. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom.

Fig. 6

Forest plot for Japanese Orthopedic Association score. SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative; df, degrees of freedom.

Fig. 7

Forest plot for length of stay (days). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Table 1

Search strategy for electronical databases

Databases Search terms
PubMed (((“anti inflammatory agents”[Pharmacological Action] OR “anti inflammatory agents”[MeSH Terms] OR (“anti inflammatory”[All Fields] AND “agents”[All Fields]) OR “anti inflammatory agents”[All Fields] OR (“anti”[All Fields] AND “inflammatory”[All Fields]) OR “anti inflammatory”[All Fields]) AND (“gelatin”[MeSH Terms] OR “gelatin”[All Fields] OR “gelatine”[All Fields] OR “gelatins”[All Fields] OR “gelatination”[All Fields] OR “gelatines”[All Fields] OR “gelatinization”[All Fields] OR “gelatinize”[All Fields] OR “gelatinized”[All Fields] OR “gelatinizing”[All Fields] OR “gelatinous”[All Fields]) AND (“porifera”[MeSH Terms] OR “porifera”[All Fields] OR “sponge”[All Fields] OR “sponges”[All Fields] OR “sponged”[All Fields] OR “sponging”[All Fields])) OR (“gelatin sponge, absorbable”[MeSH Terms] OR (“gelatin”[All Fields] AND “sponge”[All Fields] AND “absorbable”[All Fields]) OR “absorbable gelatin sponge”[All Fields] OR “gelfoam”[All Fields] OR “gelfoams”[All Fields])) AND (“pain, postoperative”[MeSH Terms] OR (“pain”[All Fields] AND “postoperative”[All Fields]) OR “postoperative pain”[All Fields] OR (“post”[All Fields] AND “operative”[All Fields] AND “pain”[All Fields]) OR “post operative pain”[All Fields] OR (“outcome”[All Fields] OR “outcomes”[All Fields])) AND ((“spine”[MeSH Terms] OR “spine”[All Fields] OR “spines”[All Fields] OR “spine s”[All Fields]) AND (“surgery”[MeSH Subheading] OR “surgery”[All Fields] OR “surgical procedures, operative”[MeSH Terms] OR (“surgical”[All Fields] AND “procedures”[All Fields] AND “operative”[All Fields]) OR “operative surgical procedures”[All Fields] OR “general surgery”[MeSH Terms] OR (“general”[All Fields] AND “surgery”[All Fields]) OR “general surgery”[All Fields] OR “surgery s”[All Fields] OR “surgerys”[All Fields] OR “surgeries”[All Fields]))
Europe PMC (anti-inflammatory gelatin sponge OR gelfoam) AND (post operative pain OR outcomes) AND spine surgery
ScienceDirect (anti-inflammatory gelatin sponge OR gelfoam) AND (post operative pain OR outcomes) AND spine surgery
Google Scholar (anti-inflammatory gelatin sponge OR gelfoam) AND (post operative pain OR outcomes) AND spine surgery

Table 2

Demographics of included study

Authors (year) Study design Country Sample size Surgical types Mean age/median age (yr) Mixture of drugs in gelatin sponge Length of stay (day)
Intervention Control Intervention Control Intervention Control
Tavanaei et al. [18] (2022) RCT Iran 50 50 Posterolateral lumbar fusion 51.7±11.7 48.5±12.5 1 mL of triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg) 5.67±1.56 5.7±1.29
Kumari et al. [19] (2018) RCT India 25 25 Lumbar laminectomy 47.76±9.11 46.44±10.52 10 mL of 0.25% levobupivacaine+2 mL of dexamethasone NA NA
Du et al. [12] (2018) Retrospective cohort China 136 129 MIS-TLIF 55.5±12.1 56.4±11.7 2 mL 0.2% ropivacaine (10 mL:20 mg)+1 mL dexamethasone (1 mL:5 mg)+2 mL vitamin B12 injection (2 mL:0.5 mg) 5.8±0.7 7.1±1.2
Du et al. [13] (2021) RCT China 63 65 MIS-TLIF 52.3±4.3 53.0±4.4 2.5 mL dexamethasone injection (1 mL:5 mg) 5.6±0.8 7.2±1.4
Du et al. [14] (2021) Prospective cohort China 139 - MIS-TLIF 52.8±4.6 - 2.5 mL dexamethasone 2.7±0.9 -
Shin et al. [17] (2006) RCT Korea 12 11 Lumbar microdiscectomy 62.2 41.6 5 mg dexamethasone NA NA
Zou et al. [21] (2022) Retrospective cohort China 38 36 Posterior PECD 44.7±6.8 45.4±7.5 Dexamethasone 15 mg (3 mL)+1% ropivacaine 8 mg (0.8 mL)+dexmedetomidine 0.2 μg/kg+vitamin B12 0.5 mg (2 mL) NA NA
Yang et al. [20] (2020) Prospective cohort China 50 50 PELD 34.8 (17–59) 35.3 (18–61) 0.4% ropivacaine injection 3 mL+dexamethasone injection 3 mL+vitamin B12 injection 2 mL 2.09±0.98 2.16±0.86
Haws et al. [22] (2019) RCT USA 45 48 MIS-TLIF 51.8±11.2 52.4±10.8 1 mL of MP (80 mg) NA NA
Modi et al. [23] (2008) Prospective case control Korea 29 28 Discectomy 29.82±7.16 30.14±8.15 40 mg MP acetate NA NA
Kim et al. [16] (2019) Prospective cohort Korea 35 47 Lumbar discectomy 53 54.9 2% lidocaine (400 mg/20 mL; 1 vial)+dexamethasone (5 mg/mL; 1 ampoule) 6.3±0.2 8.2±1.3
Du et al. [15] (2017) Prospective cohort China 96 - RA MIS-TLIF 63.9±8.4 - 0.2% ropivacaine injection 5 mL+dexamethasone injection 1 mL+vitamin b12 injection 2 mL NA NA
Song et al. [24] (2024) RCT Korea 59 57 TLIF 62.5±9.1 64.0±12.1 MP (40 mg/1 mL) NA NA

RCT, randomized controlled trials; NA, not applicable; MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PECD, percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy; PELD, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy; MP, methylprednisolone; RA, robot-assisted; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Table 3

Newcastle-Ottawa Score for assessment of observational studies

Study Selection Comparability Outcomes Total score
Du et al. [12] (2018) *** * *** 7
Du et al. [13] (2021) *** ** ** 7
Zou et al. [21] (2022) **** * *** 8
Yang et al. [20] (2020) **** * *** 8
Modi et al. [23] (2008) *** ** ** 7
Kim et al. [16] (2019) *** * *** 7
Du et al. [15] (2017) *** * *** 7

Table 4

Summary of GRADE assessment

Outcomes No. of participants (no. of studies) Quality assessment Effect estimate (95% CI)
Design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Quality
VAS for back pain 542 intervention vs. 546 control (11 studies) 6 RCTs, 4 cohorts, 1 case control No serious risk of bias Serious No serious indirectness No serious imprecision None Moderate MD, −0.62; 95% CI, −0.78 to −0.46
VAS for leg pain 356 intervention vs. 353 control (6 studies) 4 RCTs, 2 cohorts No serious risk of bias Serious No serious indirectness No serious imprecision None Moderate MD, −0.60; 95% CI, −0.87 to −0.34; p<0.00001
Disability indices (ODI and NDI) 183 intervention vs. 184 control (4 studies) 2 RCTs, 2 cohorts Serious Serious No serious indirectness No serious imprecision None Low MD, −0.59; 95% CI, −1.88 to 0.70; p=0.37
JOA scoring 199 intervention vs. 193 control (2 studies) 2 cohorts Serious Serious No serious indirectness No serious imprecision None Low MD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.00 to 1.96; p=0.05
Length of stay 334 intervention vs. 341 control (5 studies) 2 RCTs, 2 cohorts, 1 case control No serious risk of bias Serious No serious indirectness No serious imprecision None Moderate MD, −0.99; 95% CI, −1.68 to −0.31; p=0.0004

GRADE, Grading’s of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations; CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; RCT, randomized controlled trials; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; NDI, Neck Disability Index; JOA, Japanese Orthopedics Association.

Table 5

Summary of adverse events of included studies

Authors (year) Incidence of adverse events
Tavanaei et al. [18] (2022) 4 (8.0%) and 2 (4.0%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively, developed superficial surgical site infections, PONV 13 (26.0%) in intervention vs. 18 (36%) in control
Kumari et al. [19] (2018) Nausea: 2 (8%) in intervention and 9 (36%) in control, vomiting 1 (4%) in intervention and 7 (28%) in control, urinary retention 1 patient in intervention
Du et al. [15] (2017) No reported complications or adverse events
Du et al. [12] (2018) 26 patients reported bilateral limb weakness complete recovery within 24 hours, 2 patients developed hypotension, 2 patients developed headache and vomiting
Du et al. [13] (2021) One case (1.5%) in control group developed postoperative infection.
Du et al. [14] (2021) 2 cases (1.4%) with complications: 1 case (0.7%) of wound infection, resolved with antibiotics and local wound treatment, and 1 case (0.7%) of deep vein thrombosis, resolved with 6 months of therapy.
Shin et al. [17] (2006) No reported complications or adverse events
Zou et al. [21] (2022) No reported complications or adverse events
Yang et al. [20] (2020) No reported complications or adverse events
Haws et al. [22] (2019) Post urinary retention on 1 patient (2.2%), superficial wound infection on 2 patients (4.4%), reoperation on 1 patient (2.2%)
Modi et al. [23] (2008) No reported complications or adverse events
Kim et al. [16] (2009) No reported complications or adverse events
Song et al. [24] (2024) Control group: 2 patients with urinary retention, 1 patient with infection, 1 patient undergone reoperation. Intervention group, 1 patient with urinary retention, 1 patient with infection, 1 patient undergone revision surgery, 2 reoperations