Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hemostasis with eletrocauterization in comparison with Floseal((r)) leads to different bleeding rates during total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WAS PERFORMED BETWEEN TWO GROUPS: group with ten consecutive total knee arthroplasties with Floseal((r)) used as hemostatic method and control group with ten consecutive total knee arthroplasties with eletrocauterization as hemostatic method. Bleeding parameters such as debit of the drain, liquid infusion and blood transfusion rate were recorded. RESULTS: Floseal((r)) group received less blood transfusion, less liquid infusion and lower drainage in absolute numbers compared to the control group. However, no parameter was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Hemostasis with Floseal((r)) is as effective as hemostasis with eletrocauterization, what makes it a viable alternative to patients with contraindication to electric scalpel use. Level of Evidence II, Prospective Comparative Study.