Comparison of Floseal(r) and electrocautery in hemostasis after total knee arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hemostasis with eletrocauterization in comparison with Floseal((r)) leads to different bleeding rates during total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WAS PERFORMED BETWEEN TWO GROUPS: group with ten consecutive total knee arthroplasties with Floseal((r)) used as hemostatic method and control group with ten consecutive total knee arthroplasties with eletrocauterization as hemostatic method. Bleeding parameters such as debit of the drain, liquid infusion and blood transfusion rate were recorded. RESULTS: Floseal((r)) group received less blood transfusion, less liquid infusion and lower drainage in absolute numbers compared to the control group. However, no parameter was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Hemostasis with Floseal((r)) is as effective as hemostasis with eletrocauterization, what makes it a viable alternative to patients with contraindication to electric scalpel use. Level of Evidence II, Prospective Comparative Study.

Comparação entre Floseal® e eletrocauterio na hemostasia após artroplastia total do joelho / Comparison of Floseal® and electrocautery in hemostasis after total knee arthroplasty

OBJETIVO: Avaliar se a hemostasia com eletrocauterização em comparação ao uso do Floseal® durante artroplastias totais primárias de joelho, leva a diferentes taxas de sangramento peri-operatório.MÉTODOS: Foi realizado um estudo comparativo entre dois grupos: grupo de estudo com 10 casos de próteses primárias consecutivas com o uso do Floseal® como método hemostático, e grupo controle com 10 casos de próteses primárias consecutivas com uso de eletrocauterização como método hemostático. Foram avaliados parâmetros de sangramento como debito do dreno, infusão de líquidos, queda dos valores de hemoglobina e índice de transfusões sanguíneas.RESULTADOS: O grupo que fez uso de Floseal® apresentou em números absolutos menores valores de sangramento em relação ao grupo que fez hemostasia com eletrocautério tanto no débito do dreno pós-operatório quanto na infusão de líquidos e quantidade de transfusões sanguíneas. Nenhum parâmetro, porém, foi estatisticamente significativamente.CONCLUSÃO: A hemostasia com uso do Floseal® se mostrou semelhante à hemostasia com uso do eletrocautério, tornando-o uma alternativa aos pacientes que tenham contraindicação ao uso do bisturi elétrico.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hemostasis with eletrocauterization in comparison with Floseal® leads to different bleeding rates during total knee arthroplasty.METHODS: A comparative study was performed between two groups: group with ten consecutive total knee arthroplasties with Floseal® used as hemostatic method and control group with ten consecutive total knee arthroplasties with eletrocauterization as hemostatic method. Bleeding parameters such as debit of the drain, liquid infusion and blood transfusion rate were recorded.RESULTS: Floseal® group received less blood transfusion, less liquid infusion and lower drainage in absolute numbers compared to the control group. However, no parameter was statistically significant.CONCLUSION: Hemostasis with Floseal® is as effective as hemostasis with eletrocauterization, what makes it a viable alternative to patients with contraindication to electric scalpel use.Level of Evidence II, Prospective Comparative Study.