Heitzer Marius, Winnand Philipp, Bock Anna, Ooms Mark, Katz Marie Sophie, Kniha Kristian, Grottke Oliver, Hölzle Frank, Modabber Ali
Department of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Clinic for Anesthesiology/Operative Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
J Funct Biomater. 2023 Jun 22;14(7):333. doi: 10.3390/jfb14070333.
An increase in rivaroxaban therapies is associated with increased numbers of postoperative bleeding despite the use of hemostatic sponges, which are currently the gold standard treatment. VIVO has shown promising hemostatic results, favorable tissue properties, and ease of application, although it has not yet been used in the oral cavity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemostatic properties of VIVO in the extraction sockets of 31 rodents and compare this to gelatin sponge (GSP) therapy. At rivaroxaban concentrations of 264.10 ± 250.10 ng/mL, 62 extraction sockets were generated, of which 31 were treated with VIVO and 31 with GSP. The duration time, early and late bleeding events, and wound healing score were determined. Histologic examinations of the tissues were performed after 5 days. VIVO presented a longer procedure, 1.26 ± 0.06 min, but a significantly shorter bleeding time, 0.14 ± 0.03 min. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of the severity and timing of bleeding. More minor early bleeding events were observed for GSP. VIVO showed a significantly better healing score, with favorable histological results. In an animal study, VIVO showed promising hemostatic properties after tooth extraction under ongoing anticoagulative therapy.
尽管目前使用的止血海绵是金标准治疗方法,但利伐沙班治疗的增加与术后出血数量的增加有关。VIVO已显示出有前景的止血效果、良好的组织特性和易于应用,尽管它尚未用于口腔。本研究的目的是评估VIVO在31只啮齿动物拔牙创中的止血特性,并将其与明胶海绵(GSP)治疗进行比较。在利伐沙班浓度为264.10±250.10 ng/mL时,产生了62个拔牙创,其中31个用VIVO治疗,31个用GSP治疗。测定了持续时间、早期和晚期出血事件以及伤口愈合评分。在5天后对组织进行组织学检查。VIVO的操作时间较长,为1.26±0.06分钟,但出血时间明显较短,为0.14±0.03分钟。两组在出血的严重程度和时间方面没有差异。GSP观察到更多轻微的早期出血事件。VIVO显示出明显更好的愈合评分,组织学结果良好。在一项动物研究中,VIVO在持续抗凝治疗下拔牙后显示出有前景的止血特性。