Background: Postoperative hemorrhage remains an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication of thyroid surgery. The aim of this case-controlled study was to compare the effectiveness of PerClot® hemo...Background: Postoperative hemorrhage remains an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication of thyroid surgery. The aim of this case-controlled study was to compare the effectiveness of PerClot® hemostatic agent with hemostasis by conventional technique (HCT) in thyroid surgery. Methods: The thyroid resection was performed from November 2009 to February 2010. Exclusion criteria were applied. There were 30 patients in the HCT group and 30 patients in the PerClot® group. The outcome parameters were postoperative bleeding, the drainage volume 24 hours postoperatively and adverse events according to PerClot®. Results: There was no post-operative hemorrhage in both groups. We found no significant difference between the control andPerClot® group with regard to total drainage volume after 24 h (51 ml ± 36.9 control group/53 ml ± 39.5 PerClot® group (p = 0.79)). There were no adverse events in the PerClot® group. Conclusions: Routine use of PerClot® hemostatic agent has no advantage over conventional hemostasis technique (HCT) in thyroid surgery. In addition, PerClot®?is safe and well tolerated.展开更多
文摘Background: Postoperative hemorrhage remains an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication of thyroid surgery. The aim of this case-controlled study was to compare the effectiveness of PerClot® hemostatic agent with hemostasis by conventional technique (HCT) in thyroid surgery. Methods: The thyroid resection was performed from November 2009 to February 2010. Exclusion criteria were applied. There were 30 patients in the HCT group and 30 patients in the PerClot® group. The outcome parameters were postoperative bleeding, the drainage volume 24 hours postoperatively and adverse events according to PerClot®. Results: There was no post-operative hemorrhage in both groups. We found no significant difference between the control andPerClot® group with regard to total drainage volume after 24 h (51 ml ± 36.9 control group/53 ml ± 39.5 PerClot® group (p = 0.79)). There were no adverse events in the PerClot® group. Conclusions: Routine use of PerClot® hemostatic agent has no advantage over conventional hemostasis technique (HCT) in thyroid surgery. In addition, PerClot®?is safe and well tolerated.
