Endodontic InfectionNCT07311291
The Effect of Different Hemostatic Agents on Hemorrhage Control, Pain and Quality of Life After Endodontic Microsurgery.
A study testing Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) and Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate in people with Endodontic Infection and Periapical Diseases, run by University of Turin, Italy at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
Background This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of two different hemostatic materials for endodontic microsurgery on bleeding control, postoperative pain and patients' quality of life. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Endodontic Infection, Periapical Diseases
- What is being tested?
- Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) and Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 34 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 27 Feb 2025to 31 May 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Consecutive informed and consenting healthy subjects (ASA 1-2) of both genders with no medical history of systemic disease and presenting a diagnosis of symptomatic or asymptomatic apical periodontitis in correspondence of endodontically treated teeth with medium (2-5 mm3) and large (≥5 mm3) periapical lesions.
- Subjects with periapical defects with one or two residual cortical walls.
- Subjects with clinical indications for retrograde endodontic retreatment: teeth presenting inadequate root canal treatment with periapical radiolucency and impossible access through orthograde retreatment due to the presence of prosthetic restorations, posts, canal blocks and ledges.
- Subjects with teeth presenting an adequate coronal seal and absence of pathological periodontal records.
Who cannot join
- Subjects affected by diabetes mellitus.
- Subjects affected by hypertension.
- Subjects affected by hepatic or renal diseases.
- Subjects affected by bleeding disorders, antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.
- Women experiencing pregnancy.
- Subjects with teeth considered not restorable.
Show all 9Show fewer
- Subjects with dental elements affected by fractures.
- Subjects with dental elements affected by extensive periodontal defects.
- Subjects with bone cavity designs with no residual cortical walls.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Effect of Different Hemostatic Agents on Hemorrhage Control, Pain and Quality of Life After Endodontic Microsurgery: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Background This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of two different hemostatic materials for endodontic microsurgery on bleeding control, postoperative pain and patients' quality of life.
Methods Thirty-four subjects affected by apical periodontitis with clinical and radiographical indications for endodontic microsurgery were randomly divided into two groups: in the first group (n=15) a surgical glue was tested and in the second group (n=19) the ferric sulfate was used for hemostasis. The bleeding and the surgical field visibility during the intervention were evaluated. The postoperative pain and quality of life (QoL) was recorded through a numerical rating scale (NRS) and an Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire for seven days. The number of analgesics consumed during the same intervals was also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-Square test, Mann-Whitney test, and Fisher t-test (P=0.05).
Read the detailed description
Eligibility criteria Consecutive informed and consenting healthy subjects (ASA 1-2) of both genders with no medical history of systemic disease and presenting a diagnosis of symptomatic or asymptomatic apical periodontitis in correspondence of endodontically treated teeth with medium (2-5 mm3) and large (≥5 mm3) periapical lesions were enrolled. The diagnosis was performed clinically and radiographically through periapical radiographs and small field of view (FOV) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). The lesions volume and diameters were evaluated using the dedicated software Mimics 24.0 (Materialise, Belgium). Only periapical defects with one or two residual cortical walls were considered, while bone cavity designs with no cortical walls were excluded. The clinical indications for retrograde endodontic retreatment were reported for all cases: the teeth presented inadequate root canal treatment with periapical radiolucency and impossible access through orthograde retreatment due to the presence of prosthetic restorations, posts, canal blocks and ledges. Moreover, the teeth presented an adequate coronal seal and absence of pathological periodontal records.
The subjects affected by diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hepatic or renal diseases were excluded from the study. Similarly, exclusion criteria included bleeding disorders, pregnancy and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The teeth that were considered unrestorable and the elements affected by fractures or extensive periodontal defects were also dismissed. A written consensus reporting information about the surgical procedure and the clinical and radiographical follow-up was supplied.
Sample size calculation The sample size calculation was estimated basing on clinical outcomes. In particular, basing on the VAS score reduction as primary endpoint, a study power of 80%, with a significance level of 5%, and a standard deviation of 6.24 was calculated and 10 subjects per set group were needed.
Randomization and allocation The patients were blind about the randomization that was performed by assigning a code. Double blinding was not possible due to the use of different hemostatic agents during the surgical procedure.
Treatment procedure The procedure was completed by one single experienced surgeon in a sterile environment using an operating microscope (OPMI Pro Ergo, Carl Zeiss, Germany). After the administration of local anesthesia with articaine 1:100,000 (Septodont, France) and 10 minutes later lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:50,000 (Dentsply Sirona, USA), a full thickness mucoperiosteal flap was elevated. The debridement of the periradicular lesion was obtained using surgical curettes (Hu-Friedy) and the bone crypt was completed with a dedicated bur (#557 SL Lindemann; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA). After curettage, the surgeon and two independent assistants evaluated the hemorrhage degree and the visibility of the surgical field. Afterwards, in group 1 (n=15) the surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) was applied for the hemorrhage control in the bone crypt with a needle 23G, while in group 2 (n=19) the ferric sulfate 15.5% (Astringedent) was positioned in the surgical site through compression with a cotton pellet. The qualitative analysis of bleeding score and the visibility of the surgical site after the use of the hemostatic agent was evaluated.
The apical resection of 2-3 mm with a 0º-10º bevel angle was achieved with a surgical bur (#557 SL Lindemann; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA). Afterwards, a solution of 2% methylene blue was used to stain the apical portion of the root to visualize anatomies, isthmuses and fractures. In both groups the preparation of the apical 3 mm was achieved following the long axis of the root with a piezoelectric device (MiniPiezon Device, EMS, Switzerland) and dedicated tips (ProUltra Surgical Tips, Dentsply Sirona, USA). Root end filling was completed with superEBA sealer (SuperSeal, OGNA, Italy). After irrigation with saline solution and the removal of the hemostatic agent, the wound site was filled with blood clot, and the bleeding recovery was measured using the hemorrhage control score and comparing data with the previous records. Afterwards, the flap was sutured with a 5-0 resorbable suture (Vicryl suture, Ethicon, Switzerland). A post-surgical protocol was presented to the patients. The patients were advised to follow a specific diet, and to dismiss hard physical exercise and smoking. Mouth rinses with chlorexidine digluconate 0.2% mouthwash for seven days were prescribed. A pharmacological prescription including optional analgesics (ibuprofen 600 mg), and no antibiotics was given in any case. All patients were booked for suture removal after five days.
Outcomes According to a previous study, the hemorrhage control and the surgical field view were evaluated assigning a dedicated score. The hemorrhage control and the surgical field view evaluation was performed two times: after the curettage of the bone lesion before the use of the hemostatic agents, and after the hemostasis. The bleeding recovery was evaluated after the removal of the hemostatic agent.
The patients' quality of life (QoL) questionnaire Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) assessed the impact of the surgical procedure on the signs and symptoms affecting the oral and general functions. The questionnaire evaluated different domains: functional limitations, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. A 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = never, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = occasionally, 4 = fairly often, 5 = very often) was introduced. Pain assessment was conducted using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). In this scale a 20-point difference between groups is considered clinically significant. The subjects were asked to record the amount of pain they felt every day after the surgical procedure. Moreover, patients were asked to fill out the frequency of the analgesic intake from immediately after surgery up to 1 week. All subjects were requested to fill out the questionnaire and the NRS scale and to record possible symptoms during the first seven days after surgery. To ensure the correct recording of these forms, they were contacted two times in the first week to check on their status and to answer any possible dilemma regarding the filling of the documents.
Statistical analysis A blinded statistical analysis was performed. A chi-square-test was used for the analysis of the hemorrhage control, while the Fisher t-test was utilized for the quality of life and analgesic intake. Inter-examiner reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Moreover, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pain assessment on postoperative days. The statistically significant level was settled with a P value < .05. The software SPSS Statistics v.23.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for the analysis.
- Conditions
- Endodontic Infection, Periapical Diseases
- Being tested
- Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy), Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate
- Keywords
- endodontic microsurgery, surgical glue, ferric sulfate, cone-beam computed tomography, hemostatic agents
- Medical subject headings
- Periapical Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy)Other
Hemostatic agents during apical surgery.
Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfateOther
Hemostatic agents during apical surgery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Apical Surgery | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy); Other: Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Visual Hemorrhage Control (VHC)
A questionnaire was given to the first, second and third operator. In the questionnaire it was asked to asses the Hemorrhage control with a scale from 0 (No control - worst outcome) to 4 (Total control - better outcome).
Measured: perioperative
Secondary outcomes (2)
Postoperative pain
Postoperative pain analyzed through a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). In this scale a 20-point difference between groups is considered clinically significant (0 better outcome, 20 worst outcome).
Measured: 7 days
Quality of life (QoL)
Quality of life was recorded through Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). The questionnaire evaluated different domains: functional limitations, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. A 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = never - better outcome, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = occasionally, 4 = fairly often, 5 = very often - worst outcome) was introduced.
Measured: 7 Days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Dec 2025
- Study start27 Feb 2025
- Primary completion31 May 2025
- Study completion31 May 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Endodontic InfectionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 34 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Turin, Italy
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Damiano Pasqualini, University of Turin, Italy
- Investigators
- Damiano Pasqualini, Associate Professor, Principal investigator, University of Turin, ItalyMario Alovisi, Associate Professor, Study director, University of Turin, Italy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07311291
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 00272/2023
- Status last verified
- Feb 2025
- First submitted
- 20 Nov 2025
- Last updated
- 30 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effect of Different Hemostatic Agents on Hemorrhage Control, Pain and Quality of Life After Endodontic Microsurgery: a Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07311291
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 00272/2023
- Conditions
- Endodontic Infection, Periapical Diseases
- Keywords
- endodontic microsurgery, surgical glue, ferric sulfate, cone-beam computed tomography, hemostatic agents
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 34 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Turin, ItalyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 27 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 May 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 May 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Background This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of two different hemostatic materials for endodontic microsurgery on bleeding control, postoperative pain and patients' quality of life.
Methods Thirty-four subjects affected by apical periodontitis with clinical and radiographical indications for endodontic microsurgery were randomly divided into two groups: in the first group (n=15) a surgical glue was tested and in the second group (n=19) the ferric sulfate was used for hemostasis. The bleeding and the surgical field visibility during the intervention were evaluated. The postoperative pain and quality of life (QoL) was recorded through a numerical rating scale (NRS) and an Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire for seven days. The number of analgesics consumed during the same intervals was also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-Square test, Mann-Whitney test, and Fisher t-test (P=0.05).
Detailed description
Eligibility criteria Consecutive informed and consenting healthy subjects (ASA 1-2) of both genders with no medical history of systemic disease and presenting a diagnosis of symptomatic or asymptomatic apical periodontitis in correspondence of endodontically treated teeth with medium (2-5 mm3) and large (≥5 mm3) periapical lesions were enrolled. The diagnosis was performed clinically and radiographically through periapical radiographs and small field of view (FOV) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). The lesions volume and diameters were evaluated using the dedicated software Mimics 24.0 (Materialise, Belgium). Only periapical defects with one or two residual cortical walls were considered, while bone cavity designs with no cortical walls were excluded. The clinical indications for retrograde endodontic retreatment were reported for all cases: the teeth presented inadequate root canal treatment with periapical radiolucency and impossible access through orthograde retreatment due to the presence of prosthetic restorations, posts, canal blocks and ledges. Moreover, the teeth presented an adequate coronal seal and absence of pathological periodontal records.
The subjects affected by diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hepatic or renal diseases were excluded from the study. Similarly, exclusion criteria included bleeding disorders, pregnancy and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The teeth that were considered unrestorable and the elements affected by fractures or extensive periodontal defects were also dismissed. A written consensus reporting information about the surgical procedure and the clinical and radiographical follow-up was supplied.
Sample size calculation The sample size calculation was estimated basing on clinical outcomes. In particular, basing on the VAS score reduction as primary endpoint, a study power of 80%, with a significance level of 5%, and a standard deviation of 6.24 was calculated and 10 subjects per set group were needed.
Randomization and allocation The patients were blind about the randomization that was performed by assigning a code. Double blinding was not possible due to the use of different hemostatic agents during the surgical procedure.
Treatment procedure The procedure was completed by one single experienced surgeon in a sterile environment using an operating microscope (OPMI Pro Ergo, Carl Zeiss, Germany). After the administration of local anesthesia with articaine 1:100,000 (Septodont, France) and 10 minutes later lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:50,000 (Dentsply Sirona, USA), a full thickness mucoperiosteal flap was elevated. The debridement of the periradicular lesion was obtained using surgical curettes (Hu-Friedy) and the bone crypt was completed with a dedicated bur (#557 SL Lindemann; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA). After curettage, the surgeon and two independent assistants evaluated the hemorrhage degree and the visibility of the surgical field. Afterwards, in group 1 (n=15) the surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) was applied for the hemorrhage control in the bone crypt with a needle 23G, while in group 2 (n=19) the ferric sulfate 15.5% (Astringedent) was positioned in the surgical site through compression with a cotton pellet. The qualitative analysis of bleeding score and the visibility of the surgical site after the use of the hemostatic agent was evaluated.
The apical resection of 2-3 mm with a 0º-10º bevel angle was achieved with a surgical bur (#557 SL Lindemann; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA). Afterwards, a solution of 2% methylene blue was used to stain the apical portion of the root to visualize anatomies, isthmuses and fractures. In both groups the preparation of the apical 3 mm was achieved following the long axis of the root with a piezoelectric device (MiniPiezon Device, EMS, Switzerland) and dedicated tips (ProUltra Surgical Tips, Dentsply Sirona, USA). Root end filling was completed with superEBA sealer (SuperSeal, OGNA, Italy). After irrigation with saline solution and the removal of the hemostatic agent, the wound site was filled with blood clot, and the bleeding recovery was measured using the hemorrhage control score and comparing data with the previous records. Afterwards, the flap was sutured with a 5-0 resorbable suture (Vicryl suture, Ethicon, Switzerland). A post-surgical protocol was presented to the patients. The patients were advised to follow a specific diet, and to dismiss hard physical exercise and smoking. Mouth rinses with chlorexidine digluconate 0.2% mouthwash for seven days were prescribed. A pharmacological prescription including optional analgesics (ibuprofen 600 mg), and no antibiotics was given in any case. All patients were booked for suture removal after five days.
Outcomes According to a previous study, the hemorrhage control and the surgical field view were evaluated assigning a dedicated score. The hemorrhage control and the surgical field view evaluation was performed two times: after the curettage of the bone lesion before the use of the hemostatic agents, and after the hemostasis. The bleeding recovery was evaluated after the removal of the hemostatic agent.
The patients' quality of life (QoL) questionnaire Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) assessed the impact of the surgical procedure on the signs and symptoms affecting the oral and general functions. The questionnaire evaluated different domains: functional limitations, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. A 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = never, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = occasionally, 4 = fairly often, 5 = very often) was introduced. Pain assessment was conducted using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). In this scale a 20-point difference between groups is considered clinically significant. The subjects were asked to record the amount of pain they felt every day after the surgical procedure. Moreover, patients were asked to fill out the frequency of the analgesic intake from immediately after surgery up to 1 week. All subjects were requested to fill out the questionnaire and the NRS scale and to record possible symptoms during the first seven days after surgery. To ensure the correct recording of these forms, they were contacted two times in the first week to check on their status and to answer any possible dilemma regarding the filling of the documents.
Statistical analysis A blinded statistical analysis was performed. A chi-square-test was used for the analysis of the hemorrhage control, while the Fisher t-test was utilized for the quality of life and analgesic intake. Inter-examiner reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Moreover, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pain assessment on postoperative days. The statistically significant level was settled with a P value < .05. The software SPSS Statistics v.23.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for the analysis.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Apical Surgery | Experimental | Other: Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy), Other: Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Consecutive informed and consenting healthy subjects (ASA 1-2) of both genders with no medical history of systemic disease and presenting a diagnosis of symptomatic or asymptomatic apical periodontitis in correspondence of endodontically treated teeth with medium (2-5 mm3) and large (≥5 mm3) periapical lesions.
- Subjects with periapical defects with one or two residual cortical walls.
- Subjects with clinical indications for retrograde endodontic retreatment: teeth presenting inadequate root canal treatment with periapical radiolucency and impossible access through orthograde retreatment due to the presence of prosthetic restorations, posts, canal blocks and ledges.
- Subjects with teeth presenting an adequate coronal seal and absence of pathological periodontal records.
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Subjects affected by diabetes mellitus.
- Subjects affected by hypertension.
- Subjects affected by hepatic or renal diseases.
- Subjects affected by bleeding disorders, antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.
- Women experiencing pregnancy.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy)Hemostatic agents during apical surgery. | Other | Apical Surgery |
| Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfateHemostatic agents during apical surgery | Other | Apical Surgery |
Primary outcome
Visual Hemorrhage Control (VHC)
Time frame: perioperative
A questionnaire was given to the first, second and third operator. In the questionnaire it was asked to asses the Hemorrhage control with a scale from 0 (No control - worst outcome) to 4 (Total control - better outcome).
2 secondary outcomes
Postoperative pain
Time frame: 7 days
Quality of life (QoL)
Time frame: 7 Days
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Dec 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Endodontic Infection
Enrolling by invitationPhase 4
Nanozymes in Endodontics
Apical Periodontitis, Endodontic Disease
Recruiting
One vs Two Visits Root Canal Treatments in Infected Teeth
Apical Periodontitis, Pain
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Frankincense Versus Sodium Hypochlorite for Root Canal Disinfection
Pulp Necrosis, Root Canal Infection
Recruiting
Antibacterial Effects of Intracanal Medicaments in Acute Apical Abscesses
Acute Apical Abscess
Recruiting
Antibacterial Efficacy of Bioceramic and Calcium Hydroxide Intracanal Medicaments
Periapical Periodontitis, Root Canal Infection
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Damiano Pasqualini, Associate Professor principal investigator
University of Turin, Italy
Mario Alovisi, Associate Professor study director
University of Turin, Italy
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) and Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate in people with Endodontic Infection and Periapical Diseases, run by University of Turin, Italy at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Visual Hemorrhage Control (VHC) (time frame: perioperative). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Dec 2025.