SummaryBackgroundOxidized cellulose is a well known and widely used surgical hemostat. It is available in many forms, but manufactured using either a nonregenerated or regenerated process.ObjectiveThis study compares the fiber structure, pH in solution, bactericidal effectiveness, and hemostatic effectiveness of an oxidized nonregenerated cellulose (ONRC; Traumastem®) and an oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC; Surgicel® Original).MethodsIn vitro, fiber structures were compared using scanning electron microscopy, pH of phosphate buffer solution (PBS) and human plasma were measured after each cellulose was submerged, and bactericidal effect was measured by plating each cellulose with four bacteria. In vivo, time to hemostasis and hemostatic success were compared using a general surgery nonheparinized porcine liver abrasion model and a peripheral vascular surgery heparinized leporine femoral vessel bleeding model.ResultsUltrastructure of ONRC fiber is frayed, while ORC is smooth. ORC pH is statistically more acidic than ONRC in PBS, but equal in plasma. No difference in bactericidal effectiveness was observed. In vivo, ONRC provided superior time to hemostasis relative to ORC (211.2 vs 384.6 s, N = 60/group) in the general surgery model; and superior hemostatic success relative to ORC at 30 (60 vs. 15 %; OR: 13.5; 95 % CI: 3.72–49.1, N = 40/group), 60 (85 vs. 37.5 %; OR: 12.3; 95 % CI: 3.66–41.6), and 90 s (97.5 vs 70.0 %; OR: 21.1, 95 % CI: 2.28–195.9) in the peripheral vascular model.ConclusionONRC provides superior hemostasis and equivalent bactericidal effectiveness relative to ORC, which is likely due to its fiber structure than acidity.
This study validated an intraoperative bleeding severity scale for use in clinical studies investigating hemostatic agents. The scale was usable, clear, and clinically relevant with excellent reliability. The scale fulfills requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for a clinician-reported scale and can be used to generate clinically meaningful labeling claims.
Background: Surgical hemostasis is achieved using adjunctive hemostats when conventional methods fail.Objective:This study compares the effectiveness of two adjunctive gelatin-thrombin hemostats.Hypothesis:To determine effectiveness, hemostats were compared in vivo, in vitro, and using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Methods:In vivo, a heparinized porcine liver abrasion model was used to compare hemostatic success, degree of bleeding, and blood loss at 2, 5, and 10 minutes post-treatment. In vitro, thrombin in the supernatant of each hemostat and Red Blood Cells (RBC'S) in the supernatant of clots formed by each was compared.Results:Ultrastructure of one gelatin was smooth and the other stellate. In vivo, smooth gelatin provided superior hemostatic success at 5 (85% vs. 60%; OR: 5.3; 95% CI: 1.66 to 17.9) and 10 mins (72.5% vs. 47.5%; OR: 5.0; 95% CI: 1.55 to 16.1). Smooth gelatin had a statistically different degree of bleeding at 5 (0.58 ± 0.87 [Mean ± SD] vs. 1.03 ± 1.12; OR: 3.36; 95% CI: 1.34 to 8.41) and 10 mins (1.13 ± 1.14 vs. 1.65 ± 1.05; OR: 3.87; 95% CI: 1.62 to 9.21). Mean blood loss was less with smooth gelatin at 2 (0.07 ± 0.19 vs. 0.13 ± 0.63 ml/min), 5 (0.04 ± 0.13 vs. 0.23 ± 0.45 ml/min), and 10 mins (0.09 ± 0.24 vs. 0.21 ± 0.32 ml/min). In vitro, supernatant of smooth gelatin had significantly less thrombin (6.81 vs. 10.9 IU/ml, p = .001), and significantly less RBC's than stellate gelatin (0.07 vs. 0.09 × 106/ul, p = .0085).Conclusion:Smooth gelatin has an increased ability to retain thrombin and RBC's in vitro which may explain why it provides superior hemostatic effectiveness, superior control of bleeding, and greater reduced blood loss in vivo.
These findings corroborate other MPH investigations regarding its low-level efficacy and suggest that MPH is not an appropriate surrogate for hemostatic matrix despite similar application techniques. The lack of a procoagulant within MPH may likely be the reason for its lower efficacy and need for multiple applications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.