English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

surgical science

Comparison of an Intraoperative Application of a Haemostatic Agent (PerClot&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;amp;reg&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) with Conventional Haemostatic Procedure after Thyroid Resection