Get access

The use of haemostatic gelatin sponges in veterinary surgery

Authors

  • T. M. Charlesworth,

    1. Eastcott Veterinary Hospital, Edison Park, Dorcan Way, SN3 3RB, Swindon
    2. Anderson Sturgess Veterinary Specialists, Poles Lane, Hursley, Winchester S021 ZLL
    Search for more papers by this author
  • P. Agthe,

    1. Eastcott Veterinary Hospital, Edison Park, Dorcan Way, SN3 3RB, Swindon
    2. Anderson Sturgess Veterinary Specialists, Poles Lane, Hursley, Winchester S021 ZLL
    Search for more papers by this author
  • A. Moores,

    1. Eastcott Veterinary Hospital, Edison Park, Dorcan Way, SN3 3RB, Swindon
    2. Anderson Sturgess Veterinary Specialists, Poles Lane, Hursley, Winchester S021 ZLL
    Search for more papers by this author
  • D. M Anderson

    1. Eastcott Veterinary Hospital, Edison Park, Dorcan Way, SN3 3RB, Swindon
    2. Anderson Sturgess Veterinary Specialists, Poles Lane, Hursley, Winchester S021 ZLL
    Search for more papers by this author

Errata

This article is corrected by:

  1. Errata: The use of haemostatic gelatin sponges in veterinary surgery Volume 53, Issue 8, 491, Article first published online: 30 July 2012

Abstract

Objectives: To describe the use of absorbable gelatin sponges as haemostatic implants in clinical veterinary surgical cases and to document any related postoperative complications.

Methods: Practice databases were searched for the product names “Gelfoam” and “Spongostan”. Patient records were retrieved and data regarding patient signalment, surgical procedure, National Resource Council (NRC) wound classification, source of haemorrhage, pre- and postoperative body temperature, postoperative complications, time to discharge and details of any postoperative imaging were recorded and reviewed. Follow-up information was obtained by repeat clinical examination or telephone interview with either the owner or referring veterinary surgeon. Cases with incomplete surgical records or those which were not recovered from anaesthesia were excluded from the analysis.

Results: Fifty cases (44 dogs and 6 cats) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Satisfactory haemostasis was achieved in 49 cases with one case requiring reoperation during which a second gelatin sponge was used. There were no detected hypersensitivity responses or confirmed postoperative complications relating to the use of gelatin sponges during the follow-up period (median 13 months).

Clinical Significance: This is the first review of the use of gelatin sponges in clinical veterinary surgery and suggests that gelatin sponges are safe to use in cats and dogs.

Ancillary