Comparison of an Intraoperative Application of a Haemostatic Agent (PerClot<sup>&reg</sup>) with Conventional Haemostatic Procedure after Thyroid Resection

Abstract

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 postoperative hemorrhage in both groups. We found no significant difference between the control and PerClot ® 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.

Use of PerClot® in head and neck surgery: a Scottish centre experience

“…There have been various studies that have published regarding the safety and effectiveness of haemostatic agents in operations in head and neck and we know only one that relates to the use of PerClot ® , the study conducted by Thomas von Ahnen et al [5] The ideal haemostatic agent should be inexpensive, bioabsorbable, effective, safe and easy to use. On reviewing the literature, there is some evidence of adverse events reported for haemostatic agents such as wound infection, allergic reactions, nerve entrapment [10] and can cause misleading postoperative imaging interpretation [11].…”

“…The outcome parameters were postoperative bleeding, the drainage volume 24 h postoperatively and adverse events. This study concluded that PerClot ® had no advantage over conventional hemostasis technique in thyroid surgery, while reported to be safe and well tolerated [ 5 ].…”

“…There have been various studies that have published regarding the safety and effectiveness of haemostatic agents in operations in head and neck and we know only one that relates to the use of PerClot ® , the study conducted by Thomas von Ahnen et al [ 5 ]…”

“…To our knowledge, only one published study in the English literature utilises the usage of PerClot ® as a haemostatic agent in head and neck surgery [ 5 ], with a lower-case cohort than our current work.…”