Investigation of the effectiveness of algan hemostatic agent in bleeding control using an experimental partial splenectomy model in rats [Deneysel parsiyel splenektomi modelinde sıçanlarda algan hemostatik ajanın kanama kontrolünde etkinliğinin araştırılması]

Objective: Algan hemostatic agent (AHA) is a plant-based hemostatic agent produced in Turkey. Although, there is a great improvement in the hemostatic technologies, more effective hemostatic products are required to be produced. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of AHA in a partial splenectomy model in rats. In addition, in this model, postoperative abdominal adhesion was evaluated. Materials and Methods: In this study 5-7 weeks old 64 rats were used. Rats were randomly divided into 8 groups, each consisting of eight rats (4 groups heparinized and 4 groups non-heparinized). Experimental splenectomy was performed and the gauze impregnated with saline was applied to the control group for the hemorrhage control, the gauze impregnated with liquid AHA, gel and powder form of AHA, was applied to the experimental groups. Results: The time to reach complete homeostasis was significantly shorter in all AHA groups compared to the control group. The powder and the gel forms of AHA stopped the bleeding in heparinized and non-heparinized groups in 1 second. The AHA fluid (sponge) form stopped the bleeding in the first application in the control group less than 10 seconds and the second time application was not necessary. The bleeding was able to be controlled in the heparinized control group (saline impregnated sponge) by 55 seconds and in the non-heparinized control group by 38 seconds. Conclusion: This study showed that AHA is a highly effective hemostatic agent, which would be beneficial in controlling hemorrhage. © 2019, Marmara University. All rights reserved.This study was supported by the Algan Group Health Services (Algan Group Health Services Import and Export Industry and Trade Limited Company, Istanbul, Turkey). The company provided the study materials for the scientists, but had no role for the study design, data collection and analysis. The decision to publish and the preparation of the manuscript also belong to the authors

Is induction of labour by Propess (R) safe? A comparison of midwife-led versus obstetrician-led labour management

WOS: 000356523300004PubMed: 25279771This retrospective study compared maternal and fetal outcomes after labour induction, using a dinoprostone vaginal pessary (Propess (R)) in midwife-led and obstetrician-led labour management. Labour induction outcomes, delivery mode and rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were compared. A total of 405 women, 40.5% (n = 164) from midwife-led units and 59.5% (n = 241) from an obstetricianled unit, participated. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in caesarean section rate or neonatal intensive care unit admission rates (p = 0.789 and 0.769, respectively). Non-reassuring fetal non-stress test and uterine hyperstimulation risks were higher in the obstetricianled unit (p = 0.003 and 0.001, respectively, and odds ratio (OR) 0.165, 95% CI: 0.117-0.232 and OR 0.218, 95% CI: 0.078-0.611, respectively). Postpartum blood transfusion rate was higher in the midwife-led units (p = 0.002, OR 8.082, 95% CI: 1.879-39.292). Labour induction with Propess (R) is safe during both midwife-led and obstetrician-led labour management