OBJECTIVE

To analyze an opinion of surgeons on advisability, efficacy and choice of topical hemostatic agents.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The research was based on anonymous questioning of surgeons. The questionnaires were developed by using of interactive Google Forms tool (https://www.google.ru/forms). Distribution of questionnaires and invitation of respondents to participation in research were carried out through the Internet.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 135 surgeons. Colleagues with considerable experience and length of surgical practice prevailed: 10—15 years — 16 people; 15—20 years — 22 people; over 20 years — 38 people. Opinion of less experienced surgeons was also considered: less than 5 years — 40 people; 5—10 years — 19 people. General surgeons prevailed (49%). Hemostatic sutures (30%) and application of topical hemostatic agents (27%) were the most common methods to stop parenchymal bleeding. Efficacy of local hemostatics is confirmed by small number of cases of recurrent intraoperative bleeding (n=24). Thirty-four respondents reported recurrent bleeding after hemostasis by conventional methods. Postoperative suppuration of hemostatic implant was noted by 9.5% of respondents. Most respondents (77%) prefer combination of hemostatic implants and other traditional methods of hemostasis.

CONCLUSION

According to surgeons’ opinion, local hemostatic agents are effective for parenchymal bleeding. This method may be used as basic (injury grade I by E. Moore classification) or additional method of hemostasis (grade I—III). Many respondents consider that application of topical hemostatic agent after imposing hemostatic sutures ensures the greatest efficiency of hemostasis. Moreover, placement of the agent over or under sutures seems to be the most advisable.