Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

BJS Open logoLink to BJS Open
. 2022 Jun 6;6(3):zrac075. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac075

Barrier materials for prevention of surgical adhesions: systematic review

Michael Gerard Waldron 1,, Conor Judge 2, Laura Farina 3, Aoife O’Shaughnessy 4, Martin O’Halloran 5
PMCID: PMC9167938  PMID: 35661871

Abstract

Background

Postoperative surgical adhesions constitute a major health burden internationally. A wide range of materials have been evaluated, but despite constructive efforts and the obvious necessity, there remains no specific barrier widely utilized to prevent postoperative adhesion formation. The aim of this study was to highlight and characterize materials used for prevention of postoperative surgical adhesions in both animal and human studies.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of all original research articles presenting data related to the prevention of postoperative adhesions using a barrier agent. All available observational studies and randomized trials using animal models or human participants were included, with no restrictions related to type of surgery. PubMed and Embase databases were searched using key terms from inception to August 2019. Standardized data collection forms were used to extract details for each study and assess desirable characteristics of each barrier and success in animal and/or human studies.

Results

A total of 185 articles were identified for inclusion in the review, with a total of 67 unique adhesion barrier agents (37 natural and 30 synthetic materials). Desirable barrier characteristics of an ideal barrier were identified on review of the literature. Ten barriers achieved the primary outcome of reducing the incidence of postoperative adhesions in animal studies followed with positive outputs in human participants. A further 48 materials had successful results from animal studies, but with no human study performed to date.

Discussion

Multiple barriers showed promise in animal studies, with several progressing to success, and fulfilment of desirable qualities, in human trials. No barrier is currently utilized commonly worldwide, but potential barriers have been identified to reduce the burden of postoperative adhesions and associated sequelae.


In this systematic review, we evaluated barrier materials utilized for the prevention of postoperative adhesions. We assessed 67 adhesions barriers from 185 animal and human studies in the published literature, with each barrier material was assessed based on achieving the primary goal of postoperative adhesion reduction and on the potential ability to achieve a standardized set of desirable characteristics. Multiple barriers showed promise in animal studies, with several progressing to success in and fulfilment of desirable qualities in human trials.

Introduction

Postoperative adhesions are scar tissue resulting from trauma of the peritoneal surface and have been documented in 79–90 per cent of individuals after open abdominal or pelvic surgery1–3. Postoperative adhesions are a leading cause of long-term morbidity following surgery4–6, with 27 per cent of patients being re-admitted following abdominal or pelvic surgery for disorders directly related to adhesions within 5 years6. Adhesions are associated with significant morbidity including small bowel obstruction (SBO), chronic pain, infertility, and requirement for a repeat procedure4,7,8; in addition to the socioeconomic implications7, including the significant financial burden with cumulative direct hospital care costs estimated at 2.3 billion dollars in 2011 in the USA alone9. Postoperative adhesions are characteristically difficult to treat4, with the severity of formed adhesions and rate of iatrogenic bowel injury during adhesiolysis increasing exponentially with each additional operation7. Adhesive disease has no specific laboratory or radiological finding that are currently in use in common practice, although cine-MRI has shown potential in providing information related to extent, location, and strength of intra-abdominal adhesions10. Prevention or reduction of adhesion formation is a key priority.

A wide range of materials have been evaluated in animal and/or human studies as physical barriers to separate the wound from surrounding tissue in an effort to reduce the rate and severity of postoperative adhesions9,11,12; however, despite constructive efforts and the obvious necessity, no specific barrier remains widely utilized in clinical practice to prevent postoperative adhesion formation13. Animal studies remain critical to advancing clinical research, as they are biologically similar to humans, susceptible to similar health issues, and have a shorter life cycle allowing testing over a life span and successive generation14. However, animal welfare and economic funding must be central to any decision to progress with research. The European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animal welfare was produced to harmonize standards of animal research across the EU15. Research using animal models must be carefully designed and relevant, with animal welfare remaining a central concern14. Furthermore, a comprehensive listing of studied barriers in animal and human studies is lacking in systematic reviews to date9,11,12, prompting the need to investigate the breadth of barriers previously published, including those whose investigation was halted after the animal investigation phase.

The aim of this study was to characterize the strengths and shortcomings of each barrier, comparing tissue adherence (traumatized and oozing tissue); applicability through a laparoscope; safety for the patient; ease of application; postoperative pain; and overall efficacy to reduce the rate and severity of postoperative adhesions. Utilizing the information above, the aim is to identify whether an ideal solution exists or whether a pre-existing barrier shows promise for advancement to further research, and also to assess the pre-existing barriers in terms of their readiness for the market: success in animal study; progression to human study and the outcomes; and product on the market.

Methods

Selection criteria

A systematic review was performed according to published guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration16 and is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines17. A study protocol (Appendix S1) was developed to include original research articles presenting data related to the prevention of postoperative adhesions using a barrier agent. Studies involving physical barrier agents and non-physical barriers were included. Studies of non-resorbable barriers (such as polytetrafluoroethylene), where a further interventional procedure would be necessary for removal, were excluded. All published observational studies and randomized trials were included if they met the following criteria: contained original data, used animal or human participants, or evaluated an adhesion barrier(s) in abdominal and/or pelvic adhesions. No date restrictions were applied and there was no restriction on the type of surgery.

Search strategy

A systematic search of the literature was performed in two databases (PubMed and Embase). The databases were searched from inception to August 2019. The search was performed using key terms: (Surg*(Title/Abstract)) AND (adhesion*(Title/Abstract)) AND (prevent*(Title/Abstract)) AND (barrier*(Title/Abstract)). Two reviewers (M.W. and C.J.) independently screened titles and abstracts using the Rayyan web application for systematic review screening18. Full texts were sourced for relevant articles. Inclusion criteria were assessed independently (M.W. and C.J.), and the final list was agreed by consensus with a third reviewer (L.F.). The reference lists of similar review articles were also screened. The systematic review was performed in accordance with the pre-specified protocol, which was prospectively registered on PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (ID CRD42020125090).

Data extraction

Three standardized data collection forms for animal and human studies respectively were used (Appendix S2). For each study, the title, year of publication, barrier type (natural or synthetic), barrier category (categories were finalized after data extraction), generic and brand name (where applicable), and whether the barrier contained a combination of agents, were extracted. The animal model (such as rat, chicken, or rabbit) for animal studies, and the type of surgery performed (such as abdominal or pelvic) for human studies, were recorded. Reviewers (M.W., C.J., and L.F.) independently extracted data, compared for inconsistencies, and merged into a final data set. Discrepancies were resolved following discussion under supervision of the lead author (M.O.H.).

Appraisal of studies

Additionally, desirable barrier characteristics (Appendix S3) including adherence to traumatized tissue, adherence to oozing tissue, application laparoscopically, safety for the patient, cost-effectiveness, postoperative pain, and ease of application were extracted from full-text articles. Pathway to the market characteristics were extracted as listed in Appendix S4. Successful barriers were those where positive outputs have been reported for each of the desirable characteristics in previous literature and potentially successful barriers were those that had positive outcomes but a number of desirable characteristics required further research.

Results

The search of PubMed and Embase databases identified 429 unique articles, with a further six identified from a review of reference listings. A total of 103 articles were excluded on review of titles and abstracts. Sixteen reports could not be retrieved and a further 131 records were removed after full-text review, with 185 remaining for inclusion in the review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included studies

The 185 included studies comprised 51 human studies (38 randomized clinical trials and 13 observational studies) and 134 animal studies. The type of surgery or animal respectively, and relative success of the barrier material are described in Appendix S5. Some 96 animal studies were in rat or mouse, 32 in rabbit, four in chicken, and two in pig. Human studies consisted of 26 gynaecological and 25 abdominal surgeries. Full details are described in Appendix S6.

Characteristics of barrier agents

A total of 67 unique adhesion barriers materials were identified, comprising 16 barrier categories. The barrier materials included 37 natural and 30 synthetic products. The characteristics of the 67 barrier agents based on the eight distinctive properties are summarized in Table 1 and described in detail in Appendix S7.

Table 1.

Characteristics of promising barrier materials

Adherence to traumatized tissue Adherence to oozing tissue Safety Laparoscopic applicability Ease of application Postoperative pain Cost-effectiveness
ORC
CMC/HA
cHA ✗ (Liquid) ✗ (Liquid)
Icodextrin ✗ (Liquid) ✗ (Liquid)
PEG ✗ (Liquid) ✗ (Liquid)
HA hydrogel ✗ (Liquid) ✗ (Liquid) ?
PLA/PEG ? Mixed Mixed ?
Poloxamer 407/alginate ? ? ?
Dextran 70 ? ? ? ?
Polyester/collagen ? ? ?

?, no data available. ORC, oxidized regenerated cellulose; CMC, carboxymethylcellulose; HA, hyaluronic acid; cHA, crosslinked HA; PEG, polyethylene glycol; PLA, polylactic acid.

Natural barriers

Algae

Alginate and alginate/hyaluronic acid both had success in animal studies19–22. No human studies were found for any of the materials. The alginate barrier had a higher efficacy compared with a commercialized barrier Interceed in an animal study19. Safety concerns for agar films were identified in an animal study, where there was an increased rate of adverse events23.

Cellulose

Oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) and a combination of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)/hyaluronic acid (HA) had successful animal24–48 and human studies (de novo, reformation, elective, and emergency surgery) after both open and laparoscopic approaches8,49–77. ORC showed greater efficacy compared with control in reducing de novo adhesions during laparoscopic myomectomy52 but was inferior to poloxamer 407 in a comparator study26, although poloxamer 407 is only compatible on a completely haemolysed surface. ORC, modified xyloglucan hydrogel, and CMC/HA have very good safety profiles, low levels of postoperative pain, and score highly on ease of application64,73,78.

Chitosan

Six barriers identified had successful animal studies79–88 but had no human studies performed thus the safety profiles, cost-effectiveness, and levels of postoperative pain remain unknown.

Glycoprotein

Four barrier materials were identified as having successful findings in animal studies36,39,40,89–95, with only a single human study for fibrin, which was not successful in preventing de novo adhesions after open surgery96.

Hyaluronic acid

Three barriers were identified which were successful in animal studies97–109, with HA hydrogel achieving positive results in preventing de novo adhesions following laparoscopic surgery in a single human study110,111. It can be applied laparoscopically with low levels of postoperative pain111, although cost-effectiveness remains unknown.

Icodextrin

Icodextrin had positive outcomes in both animal29,101,112 and human studies (de novo and elective surgery)113–117. It can be applied laparoscopically and has positive outputs in terms of safety, cost-effectiveness, levels of postoperative pain, and ease of use114,115,117.

Starch

Sterile hydrophilic starch and dextrin had positive results in animal studies29,118–120, but neither material was successful in human studies121,122. Positive outputs have been reported for sterile hydrophilic starch in terms of safety, levels of postoperative pain, and ease of application118–121.

Miscellaneous

Twelve barriers in the group were identified with successful animal studies102,123–136; however, only Dextran 70 progressed to have a single successful human study (de novo and laparoscopic surgery). Each of the 12 barriers reported were easy to apply102,117,124,126,132,136; however, safety, cost-effectiveness, and levels of postoperative pain remain unknown for each barrier.

Synthetic barrier

Polycaprolactone

Four barriers had successful animal studies137–144, with no human studies identified. Polycaprolactone/polyhydroxybutyrate, and polycaprolactone/polyethylene glycol (PEG) can be applied laparoscopically and demonstrated good usability141,145.

Polyethylene glycol

Four barriers had successful animal studies26,38,146–155, with positive outcomes reported in human studies for PEG (de novo, reformation, and elective surgery) and poloxamer 407/alginate (de novo) in laparoscopic surgery156–165. No human studies were identified for poloxamer 407. PEG has had positive outputs in terms of patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and level of postoperative pain157,159,160. Poloxamer 407 alginate has been shown to have a high level of patient safety165, but cost-effectiveness, and postoperative pain are unknown.

Polyglycolic acid

The polyglycolic acid barrier had no successful animal study166 and no human studies have been identified.

Polylactic acid

Two barriers identified had successful animal studies38,167–172, with one successful human study performed analysing polylactic acid (PLA)/PEG barrier173. PLA/PEG had reports of high level of patient safety, mixed reports related to postoperative pain, and ease of application169–171,173.

Polypropylene

Polypropylene/omega-3 had a single successful animal study174, whereas the remaining three barriers in the category had unsuccessful animal studies118,174. No human studies were identified for any of the materials. Each of the barriers requires sutures to adhere to traumatized and oozing surfaces.

Polyvinyl alcohol

Polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel and polyvinyl alcohol/CMC had successful animal studies175–181, but no human studies were identified. Characteristics including patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and postoperative pain are unknown for the two barriers.

Silicone

Polysiloxane had no successful animal studies182 and no human studies have been performed to date118,174,183.

Miscellaneous

Eight further identified barriers except for polyester/collagen had successful animal studies118,136,174,184–190. No human studies were identified for any of the materials. Polyester/collagen has a poor level of safety reported in animal studies118,174, with unknown level of the ease of barrier application. Patient safety and ease of application are unknown for the remaining barriers.

Pathway to market

The market potential for each barrier is described in Table 2, based on outcomes from animal and human studies. Six barriers with successful animal and human studies, which are currently available on the market were identified. A further 52 barrier materials with positive outcomes, where further research is required (success in both animal and human studies or success in animal studies without progression to human study) were identified. Fourteen barrier materials with negative outcomes were noted.

Table 2.

Pathway to the market characteristics

Barrier type Pathway status Successful animal test Followed by human test Positive outputs On the market
Category
Barrier name
Natural
Algae
 Alginate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Agar films graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg No No No No
 Alginate/hyaluronic acid graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Cellulose
 Oxidized regenerated cellulose graphic file with name zrac075il3.jpg Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Modified xyloglucan hydrogel graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Carboxymethylcellulose graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Carboxymethylcellulose/hyaluronic acid graphic file with name zrac075il3.jpg Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Carboxymethylcellulose/polyethylene glycol graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg No No No No
Chitosan
 N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Chitosan graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Chitosan/carboxymethylcellulose/collagen graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan/hyaluronic acid graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Chitosan/gelatin graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan/dextran graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Chitosan/polyglycolic acid graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Glycoprotein
 Fibronectin derivative graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Lactoferrin graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Fibrin graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No No
 Gelatin/polyglycan graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Gelatin/proteoglycan graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes Yes No
Hyaluronic acid
 Hyaluronic acid hydrogel graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes Yes No
 Crosslinked hyaluronic acid graphic file with name zrac075il3.jpg Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Hyaluronic acid membrane graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes Yes No
Icodextrin
 Icodextrin graphic file with name zrac075il3.jpg Yes Yes Yes Yes
Miscellaneous
 Dextran 70 graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No No
 Phosphorylcholine graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Silk graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Ancrod graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Bromelain graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Xanthan gum graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Pectin graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Modified pullulan graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Liquid paraffin graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Galls ethyl acetate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Ethyl pyruvate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Tongfu xiere enteroclysis mixture graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Starch
 Sterile hydrophilic starch graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No No
 Dextrin graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No No
Synthetic Polycaprolactone
 Polycaprolactone/polyhydroxybutyrate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 polycaprolactone/hyaluronic acid graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Polycaprolactone/polyethylene glycol graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Polycaprolactone/gelatin graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Polyethylene glycol
 Polyethylene glycol graphic file with name zrac075il3.jpg Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Polyethylene glycol/collagen/glycerol graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes Yes No
 Poloxamer 407 graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Poloxamer 407/alginate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes No No
Polyglycolic acid
 Polyglycolic acid graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No No
Polylactic acid
 Polylactic acid graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Polylactic acid/polyethylene glycol graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes No No
 Polylactic acid/polycaprolactone graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Poly(l-lactic acid)/modified mesoporous silica/ibuprofen graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Polypropylene
 Polypropylene graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg No No No No
 Polypropylene/glycolide/polycaprolactone graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No Yes
 Polydioxanone/polypropylene/carboxymethylcellulose graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg Yes No No No
 Polypropylene/titanium graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg No No No No
 Polypropylene/omega 3 graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Polyvinyl alcohol
 Polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Polyvinyl Alcohol/carboxymethylcellulose graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
Silicone
 Polysiloxane No No No No
 Polyesterurethane/polydimethylsiloxane graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes Yes Yes No
Miscellaneous
 Chitosan/poly(d,l-lactic-co-glycolic acid)/polyethylene oxide graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Polyester/collagen graphic file with name zrac075il2.jpg No No No No
N-isopropylacrylamide graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 C17 glycerin ester graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Methylene blue graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Dimethyl-sulfoxide graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Polyhydroxyethylmethacrylate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No
 Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)/epigallocatechin-3-O-gallate graphic file with name zrac075il1.jpg Yes No No No

Green, on the market; orange, positive outcomes in animal and human study (but not on the market) or successful animal study with no human study to date; red, negative results from animal and/or human studies.

Discussion

Ten barriers were identified (HA hydrogel, PLA/PEG, poloxamer 407/alginate, and Dextran 70 in addition to the six commercially available barriers) that achieved the primary outcome of preventing adhesions in both animal and human studies, with varying success in attaining each of the optimal characteristics. Furthermore, 48 additional barriers achieved positive outcomes in animal studies but never successfully progressed to a human study. The remaining nine barriers were those with unsuccessful human studies following positive animal studies and those with no successful in animal studies.

Animal models have been the basis of many great discoveries in modern biomedical research14; however, animal welfare must remain a central consideration. The large number of barriers achieving positive outcomes in animal subjects yet failing to progress to human trials questions the investigators’ intentions on progression, appropriateness of model utilized, study design, and reliability of results. Currently, there are six barriers available commercially in Europe comprising ORC (Interceed, Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey, USA), CMC/HA (Seprafilm, Sanofi, Paris, France), crosslinked HA (cHA) (Hyalobarrier, Nordic group, Paris, France), polyester/collagen (Parietex, Medtronic, Watford, UK), icodextrin 4 per cent solution (Adept, Baxter, Deerfield, Illinois, USA), and PEG (Sprayshield, Integra, LifeSciences, Plainsboro, New Jersey, USA).

The capacity to adhere to traumatized tissue is a fundamental requirement for any barrier to envelope the damaged tissue and partition the aggregated fibrin surface, thereby diminishing adhesion formation4. Overall, only three natural (ORC, CMC/HA, and HA) and two synthetic (PLA/PEG and poloxamer 407/alginate) barriers that were successful in adhesion reduction in animal and human studies demonstrated adequate ability to adhere to traumatized tissue. The barrier was a liquid preparation, except for the PLA/PEG barrier, which requires sutures to impede migration. The PLA/PEG barrier has only been utilized in a single human study of cardiac patients with positive outcomes173; however, previous studies have shown that the additional use of sutures entails a heightened opportunity for adhesion formation173,191.

Barrier attachment to oozing surfaces is an important factor to ensure the anti-adhesion effect is maintained, particularly during surgeries that include a high risk of bleeding148. Overall, natural barriers seem to maintain more effective anti-adhesion effects on oozing surfaces. HA hydrogel and CMC/HA both highlighted their capabilities in human studies; however, the ORC barrier is of limited effectiveness in the presence of blood or peritoneal fluid192. Interestingly, chitosan-based (CS) barriers exhibit haemostatic effects193. This prophylactic property, in addition to the ability of the agent to be applied to oozing surfaces, highlights promise as a barrier constituent; however, although positive outputs were achieved in animal studies utilizing CS in combination79–88,194,195, no successful human study exists.

Patient safety is of utmost importance, balancing the utility risks of a barrier with the current standard of care (no barrier). Patients who suffer postoperative adhesions have a longstanding augmented risk of a number of discrete clinical sequelae, including chronic pain, small bowel adhesive disease, increased operating time, increased duration of hospital stay, female infertility, opioid dependency, and reduced quality of life9,196. While, any potential barrier candidate should aim to alleviate or reduce potential patient risks, it is important that the barrier itself does not pose further patient safety concerns or augment postoperative pain. Overall, the nine barriers achieving the primary endpoint of reducing the extent and severity of postoperative adhesions scored highly on the Likert safety scale. Five barriers achieved positive results regarding extent of postoperative pain, with PLA/PEG barrier having mixed results, whereas poloxamer/alginate and Dextran 70 barriers had no reported outcomes.

The application of ORC during gynaecological surgery decreases the incidence and severity of postoperative adhesions without any significant adverse events76. Concerns have been raised that a single adhesion band produced from incomplete cover or on the periphery of a barrier may result in an augmented risk of strangulated SBO; however, the available evidence contradicts these concerns, highlighting that extensive adhesive disease as opposed to isolated areas correlates with incidence of SBO7. The CMC/HA barrier has been demonstrated to reduce the rate of SBO in several controlled trials56,59. Furthermore studies have found a reduction in the incidence of chronic abdominal pain8 and duration of procedure77. Despite predominantly positive outputs for the barrier, safety concerns have been highlighted with augmented risk of abdominal abscess formation on application of the barrier to the region of anastomoses56,62.

The utilization of a laparoscopic approach, where feasible, has consistently demonstrated improved patient outcomes relative to open surgery. Krielen and colleagues analysed a retrospective cohort study of 72 270 patients with adhesion-related readmissions following abdominal surgery, comprising open (n = 50 751) and laparoscopic (n = 21 519) approaches. The study interval encompassed hospital readmissions from 2009 to 2011 utilizing the validated population data for the Scottish National Health Service with a 5-year follow-up. They recorded a statistically significant reduction in the number of readmissions directly related to adhesions (1.7 per cent versus 4.3 per cent; P < 0.0001) and those possibly related to adhesions (16.0 per cent versus 18.2 per cent; P < 0.005) in the laparoscopic group6. Of the nine barriers highlighted, each can be applied laparoscopically except for PLA/PEG, where it is unknown and mixed results are reported regarding its ease of application. No studies to date have reported the ease of application of Dextran 70. ORC and CMC/HA are solid membrane barriers and therefore present an augmented challenge in laparoscopic application compared with alternative barriers, which are liquid, gel, or spray preparations. ORC has also been associated with elevated handling issues in comparison with the other preparations.

Postoperative adhesions and related complications accrue substantial healthcare costs, both directly and indirectly. Cost-effectiveness analysis of widespread utilization is an essential prerequisite for any barrier considered for introduction by policymakers. No such analysis assessing the overall cost-effectiveness of a barrier was identified in this systematic review.

The primary strength of the present study is that independent screening and abstraction for both animal and human studies was performed, resulting in the largest systematic review on the topic to date. Ideal characteristics for each barrier were independently reviewed and extracted, allowing potential barriers to be highlighted for further investigation; however, limitations including publication bias and small study bias exist as with all systematic reviews. Additional limitations rely on heterogenous reporting of characteristics and study success. Furthermore, animal models and human clinical indications were heterogenous. It was not possible to assess the long-term safety and efficacy data of the majority of barriers, as most only included short-term data.

Meticulous surgical technique and increasing performance of minimally invasive procedures have reduced the incidence and severity of the complication, but adhesions remain a significant global burden. Despite a concerted effort and vast investigation over the past two decades, there remains no specific barrier agent in widespread use internationally with only five agents licenced for use in the EU. Positive long-term data on efficacy and safety have been demonstrated for Seprafilm8; however, these remain sparse overall. Future research should concentrate on assessing the safety and confirming efficacy observed in animal studies, ensuring that all research is well designed, relevant, and takes into account issues on animal welfare. Outcomes should be reported in a uniform manner based on location of adhesions (such as the modified American Fertility Society endometriosis scale for gynaecology adhesions). Effects on quality of life seem to have been poorly explored to date and require evaluation. Furthermore, before the production of novel barriers, researchers must first ensure compliance with the EU Directive guidance, which puts a clear and explicit obligation on researchers to replace, reduce, and refine studies with animal involvement15. Additionally, alignment with clinically based surgeons to identify and assess reluctance and possible concerns with utilization of commercially available barriers, including Seprafilm, is required, and the long-term efficiency and safety data of successful barriers requires evaluation in future research8.

Funding

The authors have no funding to declare.

Supplementary Material

zrac075_Supplementary_Data

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author certifies that no other persons have made substantial contributions to the research and/or manuscript. The systematic review was performed in accordance with the pre-specified protocol, which was prospectively registered on PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (ID CRD42020125090). M.W., C.J., and L.F. were responsible for data collection. All authors contributed to data interpretation and critical revision of the report.

Disclosure. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Michael Gerard Waldron, Translational Medical Device Laboratory, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Conor Judge, Translational Medical Device Laboratory, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Laura Farina, Translational Medical Device Laboratory, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Aoife O’Shaughnessy, Translational Medical Device Laboratory, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Martin O’Halloran, Translational Medical Device Laboratory, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at BJS Open online.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, M.W., upon reasonable request.

References

  • 1. Stommel  MWJ, ten Broek  RPG, Strik  C, Slooter  GD, Verhoef  C, Grünhagen  DJ  et al.  Multicenter observational study of adhesion formation after open-and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg  2018;267:743–748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Menzies  D, Ellis  H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions–how big is the problem?  Ann R Coll Surg Engl  1990;72:60–63 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Diamond  MP. Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions. Hum Reprod Update  2001;7:567–576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Tabibian  N, Swehli  E, Boyd  A, Umbreen  A, Tabibian  JH. Abdominal adhesions: a practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med Surg  2017;15:9–13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Parker  MC, Wilson  MS, Menzies  D, Sunderland  G, Clark  DN, Knight  AD  et al.  The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis  2005;7:551–558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Krielen  P, Stommel  MWJ, Pargmae  P, Bouvy  ND, Bakkum  EA, Ellis  H  et al.  Adhesion-related readmissions after open and laparoscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study (SCAR update). Lancet  2020;395:33–41 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. ten Broek  RPG, Issa  Y, van Santbrink  EJP, Bouvy  ND, Kruitwagen  RFPM, Jeekel  J  et al.  Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ  2013;347:f5588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. van der Wal  JBC, Iordens  GIT, Vrijland  WW, van Veen  RN, Lange  J, Jeekel  J. Adhesion prevention during laparotomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg  2011;253:1118–1121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Strik  C, Wever  KE, Stommel  MWJ, Goor  Hv, ten Broek  RPG. Adhesion reformation and the limited translational value of experiments with adhesion barriers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal models. Sci Rep  2019;9:18254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Lang  RA, Buhmann  S, Hopman  A, Steitz  H-O, Lienemann  A, Reiser  MF  et al.  Cine-MRI detection of intraabdominal adhesions: correlation with intraoperative findings in 89 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc  2008;22:2455–2461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Robb  WB, Mariette  C. Strategies in the prevention of the formation of postoperative adhesions in digestive surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum  2014;57:1228–1240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Li  J, Feng  X, Liu  B, Yu  Y, Sun  L, Liu  T  et al.  Polymer materials for prevention of postoperative adhesion. Acta Biomater  2017;61:21–40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Arung  W. Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol  2011;17:4545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Barré-Sinoussi  F, Montagutelli  X. Animal models are essential to biological research: issues and perspectives. Future Sci OA  2015;1:FSO63 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. The European Parliament . Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010. OJEU  2010;33–79 [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Green  SHJ. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 (eds Higgins  JPT, Green  S). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
  • 17. Moher  D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med  2009;151:264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ouzzani  M, Hammady  H, Fedorowicz  Z, Elmagarmid  A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev  2016;5:210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Cho  WJ, Oh  SH, Lee  JH. Alginate film as a novel post-surgical tissue adhesion barrier. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed  2010;21:701–713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Chaturvedi  AA, Lomme  RMLM, Hendriks  T, van Goor  H. Prevention of postsurgical adhesions using an ultrapure alginate-based gel: alginate-based gel for prevention of adhesions. Br J Surg  2013;100:904–910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Back  JH, Cho  WJ, Kim  JH, Park  IK, Kwon  SW. Application of hyaluronic acid/sodium alginate-based microparticles to prevent tissue adhesion in a rabbit model. Surg Today  2016;46:501–508 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Chaturvedi  AA, Lomme  RMLM, Hendriks  T, van Goor  H. Ultrapure alginate anti-adhesion gel does not impair colon anastomotic strength. J Surg Res  2014;192:432–439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Mirkheshti  N, Mamoudieh  M, Alavi  SA. Evaluation of agar films in prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions in animal model. Turk J Trauma Emerg Surg  2011;17:108–112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Temiz  A, Ozturk  C, Bakunov  A, Kara  K, Kaleli  T. A new material for prevention of peritendinous fibrotic adhesions after tendon repair: oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed), an absorbable adhesion barrier. Int Orthop  2008;32:389–394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Grow  DR, Seltman  HJ, Coddington  CC, Hodgen  GD. The reduction of postoperative adhesions by two different barrier methods versus control in cynomolgus monkeys: a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Fertil Steril  1994;61:1141–1146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Rice  VM, Shanti  A, Moghissi  KS, Leach  RE. A comparative evaluation of Poloxamer 407 and oxidized regenerated cellulose (Interceed [TC7] to reduce postoperative adhesion formation in the rat uterine horn model. Fertil Steril  1993;59:901–906 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Balbinotto  RP, Muller  AL, Nunes  AG, Silva  RD, Meyer  FS, Cerski  CS  et al.  Barrier methods used to prevent pelvic adhesions in videolaparoscopy: experimental study in female rabbits. Surg Endosc  2011;25:2637–2642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Demir  U, Mihmanli  M, Coskun  H, Dilege  E, Kalyoncu  A, Altinli  E  et al.  Comparison of prosthetic materials in incisional hernia repair. Surg Today  2005;35:223–227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Poehnert  D, Grethe  L, Maegel  L, Jonigk  D, Lippmann  T, Kaltenborn  A  et al.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of peritoneal adhesion prevention devices in a rat model. Int J Med Sci  2016;13:524–532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Genc  A, Taneli  F, Yılmaz  O, Turkdogan  P, Alp Arslan  O, Sencan  A  et al.  Effect of adhesion barrier (interceed TC7) on two-stage orchidopexy operation. Scand J Urol Nephrol  2004;38:401–404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Ates  U, Ata  B, Ortakuz  S, Seyhan  A, Urman  B. Prevention of adhesion formation following ovarian surgery in a standardized animal model: comparative study of interceed and double layer surgicell. J Obstet Gynaecol Res  2008;34:12–17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Coelho Junior  ER, Costa  LO, Alencar  AV, Barbosa  AP, Pinto  FC, Aguiar  JL. Prevention of peritoneal adhesion using a bacterial cellulose hydrogel, in experimental study. Acta Cir Bras  2015;30:194–198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Haney  AF, Doty  E. Murine peritoneal injury and de novo adhesion formation caused by oxidized-regenerated cellulose (Interceed [TC7]) but not expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex surgical membrane). Fertil Steril  1992;57:202–208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Burns  JW, Skinner  K, Colt  MJ, Burgess  L, Rose  R, Diamond  MP. A hyaluronate based gel for the prevention of postsurgical adhesions: evaluation in two animal species. Fertil Steril  1996;66:814–821 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Greenawalt  KE, Colt  MJ, Corazzini  RL, Krauth  MC, Holmdahl  L. A membrane slurry reduces postoperative adhesions in rat models of abdominal surgery. J Surg Res  2011;168:e25–e30 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Oncel  M, Remzi  FH, Senagore  AJ, Connor  JT, Fazio  VW. Application of Adcon-P or Seprafilm in consecutive laparotomies using a murine model. Am J Surg  2004;187:304–308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kim  YI. Comparative study for preventive effects of intra-abdominal adhesion using cyclo-oxygenase-2 enzyme (COX-2) inhibitor, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and synthetic barrier. Yonsei Med J  2013;54:1491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Gruber-Blum  S, Petter-Puchner  AH, Brand  J, Fortelny  RH, Walder  N, Oehlinger  W  et al.  Comparison of three separate antiadhesive barriers for intraperitoneal onlay mesh hernia repair in an experimental model. Br J Surg  2011;98:442–449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Hellebrekers  BWJ, Trimbos-Kemper  GCM, van Blitterswijk  CA, Bakkum  EA, Trimbos  JBMZ. Effects of five different barrier materials on postsurgical adhesion formation in the rat. Hum Reprod  2000;15:1358–1363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Arnold  PB, Green  CW, Foresman  PA, Rodeheaver  GT. Evaluation of resorbable barriers for preventing surgical adhesions. Fertil Steril  2000;73:157–161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Erpek  H, Tuncyurek  P, Soyder  A, Boylu  S. Hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose membrane barrier versus taurolidine for the prevention of adhesions to polypropylene mesh. Eur Surg Res  2006;38:414–417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Medina  M, Paddock  HN, Connolly  RJ, Schwaitzberg  SD. Novel antiadhesion barrier does not prevent anastomotic healing in a rabbit model. J Invest Surg  1995;8:179–186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Kelekci  S, Yilmaz  B, Oguz  S, Zergeroglu  S, Inan  I, Tokucoglu  S. The efficacy of a hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose membrane in prevention of postoperative adhesion in a rat uterine horn model. Tohoku J Exp Med  2004;204:189–194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Sheldon  HK, Gainsbury  ML, Cassidy  MR, Chu  DI, Stucchi  AF, Becker  JM. A sprayable hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier exhibits regional adhesion reduction efficacy and does not impair intestinal healing. J Gastrointest Surg  2012;16:325–333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Hammer  RA, Morse  AN, Cornella  JL, Keller  RS, Hentz  J, McDonald  JA  et al.  Bringing molecular biology to bear on adhesion prevention: postsurgical adhesion reduction using intraperitoneal inoculation of hyaluronic acid–inducing adenoviral vector in a murine model. J Gynecol Surg  2006;22:7–18 [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Bahadir  I, Oncel  M, Kement  M, Sahip  Y. Intra-abdominal use of taurolidine or heparin as alternative products to an antiadhesive barrier (Seprafilm®) in adhesion prevention: an experimental study on mice. Dis Colon Rectum  2007;50:2209–2214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Lim  R, Morrill  JM, Lynch  RC, Reed  KL, Gower  AC, Leeman  SE  et al.  Practical limitations of bioresorbable membranes in the prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions. J Gastrointest Surg  2009;13:35–42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Ryan  CK, Sax  HC. Evaluation of a carboxymethylcellulose sponge for prevention of postoperative adhesions. Am J Surg  1995;169:154–160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Stawicki  SP, Green  JM, Martin  ND, Green  RH, Cipolla  J, Seamon  MJ  et al.  Results of a prospective, randomized, controlled study of the use of carboxymethylcellulose sodium hyaluronate adhesion barrier in trauma open abdomens. Surgery  2014;156:419–430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Greenblatt  EM, Casper  RF. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic ovarian cautery for polycystic ovarian syndrome: lack of correlation with pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril  1993;60:766–770 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Li  TC, Cooke  ID. The value of an absorbable adhesion barrier, Interceed, in the prevention of adhesion reformation following microsurgical adhesiolysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol  1994;101:335–339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Mais  V, Ajossa  S, Piras  B, Guerriero  S, Marongiu  D, Melis  GB. Prevention of de-novo adhesion formation after laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an oxidized regenerated cellulose absorbable barrier. Hum Reprod  1995;10:3133–3135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Saravelos  H, Li  T-C. Post-operative adhesions after laparoscopic electrosurgical treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome with the application of Interceed to one ovary: a prospective randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod  1996;11:992–997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Tinelli  A, Malvasi  A, Guido  M, Tsin  DA, Hudelist  G, Hurst  B  et al.  Adhesion formation after intracapsular myomectomy with or without adhesion barrier. Fertil Steril  2011;95:1780–1785 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Diamond  MP. Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm membrane (HAL-F): a blinded, prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. Seprafilm adhesion study group. Fertil Steril  1996;66:904–910 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Fazio  VW, Cohen  Z, Fleshman  JW, van Goor  H, Bauer  JJ, Wolff  BG  et al.  Reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm® adhesion barrier after intestinal resection. Dis Colon Rectum  2006;49:1–11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Hayashi  S, Takayama  T, Masuda  H, Kochi  M, Ishii  Y, Matsuda  M  et al.  Bioresorbable membrane to reduce postoperative small bowel obstruction in patients with gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg  2008;247:766–770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Inoue  M, Uchida  K, Miki  C, Kusunoki  M. Efficacy of Seprafilm for reducing reoperative risk in pediatric surgical patients undergoing abdominal surgery. J Pediatr Surg  2005;40:1301–1306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Kusunoki  M, Ikeuchi  H, Yanagi  H, Noda  M, Tonouchi  H, Mohri  Y  et al.  Bioresorbable hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose membrane (Seprafilm) in surgery for rectal carcinoma: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Today  2005;35:940–945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Park  C-M, Lee  WY, Cho  YB, Yun  HR, Lee  W-S, Yun  SH  et al.  Sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm®) reduced early postoperative intestinal obstruction after lower abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer: the preliminary report. Int J Colorectal Dis  2009;24:305–310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Salum  M, Wexner  SD, Nogueras  JJ, Weiss  E, Koruda  M, Behrens  K  et al.  Does sodium hyaluronate- and carboxymethylcellulose-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm) decrease operative time for loop ileostomy closure?  Tech Coloproctol  2006;10:187–191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Vrijland  WW, Tseng  LNL, Eijkman  HJM, Hop  WCJ, Jakimowicz  JJ, Leguit  P  et al.  Fewer intraperitoneal adhesions with use of hyaluronic acid–carboxymethylcellulose membrane: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg  2002;235:193–199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Merle  M, Lallemand  B, Lim  A, Gantois  G. Experimental and clinical evaluation of an absorbable biomaterial inducing an anti-adhesive barrier (Divide®). Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol  2008;18:255–263 [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Beck  DE, Cohen  Z, Fleshman  JW, Kaufman  HS, van Goor  H, Wolff  BG  et al.  A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of the safety of Seprafilm® adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon Rectum  2003;46:1310–1319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Kawamura  H, Yokota  R, Yokota  K, Watarai  H, Tsunoda  Y, Yamagami  H  et al.  A sodium hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose bioresorbable membrane prevents postoperative small-bowel adhesive obstruction after distal gastrectomy. Surg Today  2010;40:223–227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Suresh  A, Celso  BG, Awad  ZT. Seprafilm slurry does not increase complication rates after laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc  2011;25:2661–2665 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Hong  M-K, Ding  D-C. Seprafilm® application method in laparoscopic surgery. JSLS  2017;21:e2016.00097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Ota  K, Sato  K, Ogasawara  J, Takahashi  T, Mizunuma  H, Tanaka  M. Safe and easy technique for the laparoscopic application of Seprafilm® in gynecologic surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg  2019;12:242–245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Kohanzadeh  S, Lugo  L, Long  JN. Safety of antiadhesion barriers in hand surgery. Ann Plast Surg  2013;70:527–529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Bristow  RE, Montz  FJ. Prevention of adhesion formation after radical oophorectomy using a sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose (HA-CMC) barrier. Gynecol Oncol  2005;99:301–308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Nordic Adhesion Prevention Study Group . The efficacy of interceed(TC7)* for prevention of reformation of postoperative adhesions on ovaries, fallopian tubes, and fimbriae in microsurgical operations for fertility: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril  1995;63:709–714 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Franklin  R. Reduction of ovarian adhesions by the use of Interceed. Obstet Gynecol  1995;86:335–340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Mais  V, Ajossa  S, Marongiu  D, Peiretti  R, Guerriero  S, Benedettomelis  G. Reduction of adhesion reformation after laparoscopic endometriosis surgery: a randomized trial with an oxidized regenerated cellulose absorbable barrier. Obstet Gynecol  1995;86:512–515 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Wallwiener  D, Meyer  A, Bastert  G. Adhesion formation of the parietal and visceral peritoneum: an explanation for the controversy on the use of autologous and alloplastic barriers?  Fertil Steril  1998;69:132–137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Keckstein  J, Ulrich  U, Sasse  V, Roth  A, Tuttlies  F, Karageorgieva  E. Reduction of postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. Hum Reprod  1996;11:579–582 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Naito  M, Ogura  N, Yamanashi  T, Sato  T, Nakamura  T, Miura  H  et al.  Prospective randomized controlled study on the validity and safety of an absorbable adhesion barrier (Interceed®) made of oxidized regenerated cellulose for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: adhesion barrier for colorectal surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg  2017;10:7–11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Dupré  A, Lefranc  A, Buc  E, Delpero  JR, Quenet  F, Passot  G  et al.  Use of bioresorbable membranes to reduce abdominal and perihepatic adhesions in 2-stage hepatectomy of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: results of a prospective, randomized controlled phase II trial. Ann Surg  2013;258:30–36 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Zhang  E, Li  J, Zhou  Y, Che  P, Ren  B, Qin  Z  et al.  Biodegradable and injectable thermoreversible xyloglucan-based hydrogel for prevention of postoperative adhesion. Acta Biomater  2017;55:420–433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Krause  TJ, Zazanis  GA, McKinnon  RD. Prevention of postoperative adhesions with the chitin derivative N-O-carboxymethylchitosan. Wound Repair Regen  1996;4:53–57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Wei  C-Z, Hou  C-L, Gu  Q-S, Jiang  L-X, Zhu  B, Sheng  A-L. A thermosensitive chitosan-based hydrogel barrier for post-operative adhesions’ prevention. Biomaterials  2009;30:5534–5540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Zhang  E, Guo  Q, Ji  F, Tian  X, Cui  J, Song  Y  et al.  Thermoresponsive polysaccharide-based composite hydrogel with antibacterial and healing-promoting activities for preventing recurrent adhesion after adhesiolysis. Acta Biomater  2018;74:439–453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Cheng  F, Wu  Y, Li  H, Yan  T, Wei  X, Wu  G  et al.  Biodegradable N, O-carboxymethyl chitosan/oxidized regenerated cellulose composite gauze as a barrier for preventing postoperative adhesion. Carbohydr Polym  2019;207:180–190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Cai  X, Hu  S, Yu  B, Cai  Y, Yang  J, Li  F  et al.  Transglutaminase-catalyzed preparation of crosslinked carboxymethyl chitosan/carboxymethyl cellulose/collagen composite membrane for postsurgical peritoneal adhesion prevention. Carbohydr Polym  2018;201:201–210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Li  L, Wang  N, Jin  X, Deng  R, Nie  S, Sun  L  et al.  Biodegradable and injectable in situ cross-linking chitosan-hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels for postoperative adhesion prevention. Biomaterials  2014;35:3903–3917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Chen  C-H, Chen  S-H, Mao  S-H, Tsai  M-J, Chou  P-Y, Liao  C-H  et al.  Injectable thermosensitive hydrogel containing hyaluronic acid and chitosan as a barrier for prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesion. Carbohydr Polym  2017;173:721–731 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Shahram  E, Sadraie  SH, Kaka  G, Khoshmohabat  H, Hosseinalipour  M, Panahi  F  et al.  Evaluation of chitosan–gelatin films for use as postoperative adhesion barrier in rat cecum model. Int J Surg  2013;11:1097–1102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Lin  L-X, Luo  J-W, Yuan  F, Zhang  H-H, Ye  C-Q, Zhang  P  et al.  In situ cross-linking carbodiimide-modified chitosan hydrogel for postoperative adhesion prevention in a rat model. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl  2017;81:380–385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Falabella  CA, Melendez  MM, Weng  L, Chen  W. Novel macromolecular crosslinking hydrogel to reduce intra-abdominal adhesions. J Surg Res  2010;159:772–778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Nilsson  E, Björn  C, Sjöstrand  V, Lindgren  K, Münnich  M, Mattsby-Baltzer  I  et al.  A novel polypeptide derived from human lactoferrin in sodium hyaluronate prevents postsurgical adhesion formation in the rat. Ann Surg  2009;250:1021–1028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Oh  J, Kuan  KG, Tiong  LU, Trochsler  MI, Jay  G, Schmidt  TA  et al.  Recombinant human lubricin for prevention of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions in a rat model. J Surg Res  2017;208:20–25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Sato  D, Takahara  M, Narita  A, Yamakawa  J, Hashimoto  J, Ishikawa  H  et al.  Effect of platelet-rich plasma with fibrin matrix on healing of intrasynovial flexor tendons. J Hand Surg  2012;37:1356–1363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Komatsu  K, Fujii  A, Higami  T. Haemostatic fleece (TachoComb®) to prevent intrapleural adhesions after thoracotomy: a rat model. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2007;55:385–390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Kuschel  TJ, Gruszka  A, Hermanns-Sachweh  B, Elyakoubi  J, Sachweh  JS, Vázquez-Jiménez  JF  et al.  Prevention of postoperative pericardial adhesions with TachoSil. Ann Thorac Surg  2013;95:183–188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Kim  E-H, Kim  J-W, Han  G-D, Noh  S-H, Choi  J-H, Choi  C  et al.  Biocompatible, drug-loaded anti-adhesion barrier using visible-light curable furfuryl gelatin derivative. Int J Biol Macromol  2018;120:915–920 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95. De Clercq  K, Schelfhout  C, Bracke  M, De Wever  O, Van Bockstal  M, Ceelen  W  et al.  Genipin-crosslinked gelatin microspheres as a strategy to prevent postsurgical peritoneal adhesions: in vitro and in vivo characterization. Biomaterials  2016;96:33–46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Osada  H, Tanaka  H, Fujii  T, Tsunoda  I, Yoshida  T, Satoh  K. Clinical evaluation of a haemostatic and anti-adhesion preparation used to prevent post-surgical adhesion. J Int Med Res  1999;27:247–252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Liu  J, Ni  B, Zhu  L, Yang  J, Cao  X, Zhou  W. Mitomycin C-polyethylene glycol controlled-release film inhibits collagen secretion and induces apoptosis of fibroblasts in the early wound of a postlaminectomy rat model. Spine J  2010;10:441–447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Özgenel  GY, Şamli  B, Özcan  M. Effects of human amniotic fluid on peritendinous adhesion formation and tendon healing after flexor tendon surgery in rabbits. J Hand Surg  2001;26:332–339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Tanaka  T, Zhao  C, Sun  Y-L, Zobitz  ME, An  K-N, Amadio  PC. The effect of carbodiimide-derivatized hyaluronic acid and gelatin surface modification on peroneus longus tendon graft in a short-term canine model in vivo. J Hand Surg  2007;32:876–881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Yeo  Y, Highley  CB, Bellas  E, Ito  T, Marini  R, Langer  R  et al.  In situ cross-linkable hyaluronic acid hydrogels prevent post-operative abdominal adhesions in a rabbit model. Biomaterials  2006;27:4698–4705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Wallwiener  M, Brucker  S, Hierlemann  H, Brochhausen  C, Solomayer  E, Wallwiener  C. Innovative barriers for peritoneal adhesion prevention: liquid or solid? A rat uterine horn model. Fertil Steril  2006;86:1266–1276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Kataria  H, Singh  VP. Liquid paraffin vs hyaluronic acid in preventing intraperitoneal adhesions. Indian J Surg  2017;79:539–543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103. Ozmen  MM, Aslar  AK, Terzi  MC, Albayrak  L, Berberoğlu  M. Prevention of adhesions by bioresorbable tissue barrier following laparoscopic intraabdominal mesh insertion. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech  2002;12:342–346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Liu  Y, Li  H, Shu  X, Gray  S, Prestwich  G. Crosslinked hyaluronan hydrogels containing mitomycin C reduce postoperative abdominal adhesions. Fertil Steril  2005;83:1275–1283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Yeo  Y, Adil  M, Bellas  E, Astashkina  A, Chaudhary  N, Kohane  DS. Prevention of peritoneal adhesions with an in situ cross-linkable hyaluronan hydrogel delivering budesonide. J Controlled Release  2007;120:178–185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. Mitchell  J, Lee  R, Neya  K, Vlahakes  G. Reduction in experimental pericardial adhesions using a hyaluronic acid bioabsorbable membrane. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  1994;8:149–152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Tsai  S-W, Fang  J-F, Yang  C-L, Chen  J-H, Su  L-T, Jan  S-H. Preparation and evaluation of a hyaluronate-collagen film for preventing post-surgical adhesion. J Int Med Res  2005;33:68–76 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108. Kato  T, Haro  H, Komori  H, Shinomiya  K. Evaluation of hyaluronic acid sheet for the prevention of postlaminectomy adhesions. Spine J  2005;5:479–488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. Kuo  SM, Chang  SJ, Wang  H-Y, Tang  SC, Yang  S-W. Evaluation of the ability of xanthan gum/gellan gum/hyaluronan hydrogel membranes to prevent the adhesion of postrepaired tendons. Carbohydr Polym  2014;114:230–237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Hagberg  L. Exogenous hyaluronate as an adjunct in the prevention of adhesions after flexor tendon surgery: a controlled clinical trial. J Hand Surg  1992;17:132–136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111. Koninckx  PR, Corona  R, Timmerman  D, Verguts  J, Adamyan  L. Peritoneal full-conditioning reduces postoperative adhesions and pain: a randomised controlled trial in deep endometriosis surgery. J Ovarian Res  2013;6:90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Tepetes  K, Asprodini  EK, Christodoulidis  G, Spyridakis  M, Kouvaras  E, Hatzitheofilou  K. Prevention of postoperative adhesion formation by individual and combined administration of 4 per cent icodextrin and dimetindene maleate. Br J Surg  2009;96:1476–1483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Trew  G, Pistofidis  G, Pados  G, Lower  A, Mettler  L, Wallwiener  D  et al.  Gynaecological endoscopic evaluation of 4% icodextrin solution: a European, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study of the efficacy and safety in the reduction of de novo adhesions after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Hum Reprod  2011;26:2015–2027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. Kössi  J, Grönlund  S, Uotila-Nieminen  M, Crowe  A, Knight  A, Keränen  U. The effect of 4% icodextrin solution on adhesiolysis surgery time at the Hartmann’s reversal: a pilot, multicentre, randomized control trial vs lactated Ringer’s solution. Colorectal Dis  2009;11:168–172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. di Zerega  GS, Verco  SJ, Young  P, Kettel  M, Kobak  W, Martin  D  et al.  A randomized, controlled pilot study of the safety and efficacy of 4% icodextrin solution in the reduction of adhesions following laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Hum Reprod  2002;17:1031–1038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116. Catena  F, Ansaloni  L, Di Saverio  S, Pinna  AD, on behalf of the World Society of Emergency Surgery . P.O.P.A. study: prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by icodextrin 4% solution after laparotomy for adhesive small bowel obstruction. A prospective randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg  2012;16:382–388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117. Deus  C, Kropf  S, Kleinstein  J. Comparison of 2 different barrier solutions (icodextrin 4% vs. dextran 70) used as adhesion-prevention agents after microsurgical adnexal operations. J Endometr  2014;6:127–134 [Google Scholar]
  • 118. Winny  M, Maegel  L, Grethe  L, Lippmann  T, Jonigk  D, Schrem  H  et al.  Adhesion prevention efficacy of composite meshes Parietex®. Proceed® and:4D. ryField® PH covered polypropylene meshes in an IPOM rat model. Int J Med Sci  2016;13:936–941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119. Poehnert  D, Abbas  M, Kreipe  H-H, Klempnauer  J, Winny  M. Evaluation of 4DryField® PH as adhesion prevention barrier tested in an optimized adhesion model in rats. Eur Surg Res  2015;55:341–351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120. Kai  M, Maeda  K, Tasaki  M, Kira  S, Nakamura  S, Chino  N  et al.  Evaluation of a spray-type, novel dextrin hydrogel adhesion barrier under laparoscopic conditions in a porcine uterine horn adhesion model. J Minim Invasive Gynecol  2018;25:447–454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121. Blumhardt  G, Haas  M, Polte  S. Effect of 4DryField® PH, a novel adhesion barrier, on recurrence of intestinal adhesions after extensive visceral adhesiolysis. Case Rep Surg  2018;2018:9628742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122. Kojima  Y, Sakamoto  K, Okuzawa  A. Experience of using a spray-type anti-adhesion barrier in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. J Surg Case Rep  2019;2019:rjz085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123. Konovalova  MV, Markov  PA, Popova  GY, Nikitina  IR, Shumikhin  KV, Kurek  DV  et al.  Prevention of postoperative adhesions by biodegradable cryogels from pectin and chitosan polysaccharides. J Bioact Compat Polym  2017;32:487–502 [Google Scholar]
  • 124. Konar  S, Guha  R, Kundu  B, Nandi  S, Ghosh  TK, Kundu  SC  et al.  Silk fibroin hydrogel as physical barrier for prevention of post hernia adhesion. Hernia  2017;21:125–137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125. Chowdhury  SM, Hubbell  JA. Adhesion prevention with ancrod released via a tissue-adherent hydrogel. J Surg Res  1996;61:58–64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126. Sahbaz  A, Aynioglu  O, Isik  H, Ozmen  U, Cengil  O, Gun  BD  et al.  Bromelain: a natural proteolytic for intra-abdominal adhesion prevention. Int J Surg  2015;14:7–11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127. Song  Z, Zhang  Y, Shao  H, Ying  Y, Chen  X, Mei  L  et al.  Effect of xanthan gum on the prevention of intra-abdominal adhesion in rats. Int J Biol Macromol  2019;126:531–538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128. Giusto  G, Vercelli  C, Iussich  S, Audisio  A, Morello  E, Odore  R, et al.  A pectin-honey hydrogel prevents postoperative intraperitoneal adhesions in a rat model. BMC Vet Res  2016;13:55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129. Popov  SV, Popova  GY, Nikitina  IR, Markov  PA, Latkin  DS, Golovchenko  VV  et al.  Injectable hydrogel from plum pectin as a barrier for prevention of postoperative adhesion. J Bioact Compat Polym  2016;31:481–497 [Google Scholar]
  • 130. Bang  S, Lee  E, Ko  Y-G, Kim  WI, Kwon  OH. Injectable pullulan hydrogel for the prevention of postoperative tissue adhesion. Int J Biol Macromol  2016;87:155–162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131. Li  X, Zou  B, Zhao  N, Wang  C, Du  Y, Mei  L  et al.  potent anti-adhesion barrier combined biodegradable hydrogel with multifunctional Turkish galls extract. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces  2018;10:24469–24479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132. Artis  T, Artis  AS, Arslan  E, Mutlu  F, Akay  A, Deniz  K. Preventive effect of ethyl pyruvate on postoperative adhesion formation following abdominal surgery. J Invest Surg  2016;29:260–265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133. Moro-Oka  T, Miura  H, Mawatari  T, Kawano  T, Nakanishi  Y, Higaki  H  et al.  Mixture of hyaluronic acid and phospholipid prevents adhesion formation on the injured flexor tendon in rabbits. J Orthop Res  2000;18:835–840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134. Ishiyama  N, Moro  T, Ohe  T, Miura  T, Ishihara  K, Konno  T  et al.  Reduction of peritendinous adhesions by hydrogel containing biocompatible phospholipid polymer MPC for tendon repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am  2011;93:142–149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135. Soules  MR, Dennis  L, Bosarge  A, Moore  DE. The prevention of postoperative pelvic adhesions: an animal study comparing barrier methods with dextran 70. Am J Obstet Gynecol  1982;143:829–834 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136. Chen  YZ, Hao  L, Yang  HG, Wu  JY, Pan  YY, Lu  WQ  et al.  Preventive effects of Tongfu Xiere Enteroclysis Mixture on postoperative intestinal adhesion. Int J Clin Exp Med  2016;9:3981–3987
  • 137. Liu  S, Zhao  J, Ruan  H, Tang  T, Liu  G, Yu  D  et al.  Biomimetic sheath membrane via electrospinning for antiadhesion of repaired tendon. Biomacromolecules  2012;13:3611–3619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138. Chen  C-H, Chen  S-H, Shalumon  KT, Chen  J-P. Dual functional core–sheath electrospun hyaluronic acid/polycaprolactone nanofibrous membranes embedded with silver nanoparticles for prevention of peritendinous adhesion. Acta Biomater  2015;26:225–235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139. Chen  SH, Chen  CH, Shalumon  KT, Chen  JP. Preparation and characterization of antiadhesion barrier film from hyaluronic acid-grafted electrospun poly(caprolactone) nanofibrous membranes for prevention of flexor tendon postoperative peritendinous adhesion. Int J Nanomedicine  2014;9:4079–4092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140. Wu  Q, Li  L, Wang  N, Gao  X, Wang  B, Liu  X  et al.  Biodegradable and thermosensitive micelles inhibit ischemia-induced postoperative peritoneal adhesion. Int J Nanomedicine  2014;9:727–734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141. Fu  SZ, Li  Z, Fan  JM, Meng  XH, Shi  K, Qu  Y  et al.  Biodegradable and thermosensitive monomethoxy poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(lactic acid) hydrogel as a barrier for prevention of post-operative abdominal adhesion. J Biomed Nanotechnol  2014;10:427–435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142. He  T, Zou  C, Song  L, Wang  N, Yang  S, Zeng  Y  et al.  Improving antiadhesion effect of thermosensitive hydrogel with sustained release of tissue-type plasminogen activator in a rat repeated-injury model. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces  2016;8:33514–33520 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143. Gong  C, Yang  B, Qian  Z, Zhao  X, Wu  Q, Qi  X  et al.  Improving intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic effect and preventing postsurgical adhesions simultaneously with biodegradable micelles. Nanomedicine  2012;8:963–973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144. Wu  Q, Wang  N, He  T, Shang  J, Li  L, Song  L  et al.  Thermosensitive hydrogel containing dexamethasone micelles for preventing postsurgical adhesion in a repeated-injury model. Sci Rep  2015;5:13553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145. Meier Bürgisser  G, Calcagni  M, Müller  A, Bonavoglia  E, Fessel  G, Snedeker  JG  et al.  Prevention of peritendinous adhesions using an electrospun DegraPol polymer tube: a histological, ultrasonographic, and biomechanical study in rabbits. BioMed Res Int  2014;2014:1–11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146. Hong  JH, Choe  JW, Kwon  GY, Cho  DY, Sohn  DS, Kim  SW  et al.  The effects of barrier materials on reduction of pericardial adhesion formation in rabbits: a comparative study of a hyaluronan-based solution and a temperature sensitive poloxamer solution/gel material. J Surg Res  2011;166:206–213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147. Mo  F, Yue  J, Zhang  J, Howk  K, Williams  A. Evaluation of perivascular adhesion formation in New Zealand white rabbits using Oxiplex and DuraSeal Xact adhesion barrier system. Int J Spine Surg  2009;3:68–76 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148. Ozbalci  GS, Sulaimanov  M, Hazinedaroğlu  SM, Törüner  A. The effects of hydrophilic polyethylene glycol-based adhesion barrier use to prevent intra-abdominal adhesions in intra-abdominal sepsis model. Indian J Surg  2015;77:398–402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149. Dasiran  F, Eryilmaz  R, Isik  A, Okan  I, Somay  A, Sahin  M. The effect of polyethylene glycol adhesion barrier (spray gel) on preventing peritoneal adhesions. Bratisl Med J  2015;116:379–382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150. Elbert  DL, Hubbell  JA. Reduction of fibrous adhesion formation by a copolymer possessing an affinity for anionic surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res  1998;42:55–65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151. Gong  CY, Wu  QJ, Liao  JF, Qi  TT, Yang  B, Wang  YJ  et al.  Prevention of postsurgical cauterization-induced peritoneal adhesions by biodegradable and thermosensitive micelles. J Biomed Nanotechnol  2013;9:1984–1995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152. Oh  SH, Kang  JG, Lee  JH. Co-micellized pluronic mixture with thermo-sensitivity and residence stability as an injectable tissue adhesion barrier hydrogel: co-micellized pluronic mixture as a tissue adhesion barrier. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater  2018;106:172–182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153. West  JL, Hubbell  JA. Comparison of covalently and physically cross-linked polyethylene glycol-based hydrogels for the prevention of postoperative adhesions in a rat model. Biomaterials  1995;16:1153–1156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154. Leach  RE, Henry  RL. Reduction of postoperative adhesions in the rat uterine horn model with poloxamer 407. Am J Obstet Gynecol  1990;162:1317–1319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155. Park  JW, Bak  KH, Cho  TK, Chun  H-J, Ryu  JI. Effects of a temperature-sensitive, anti-adhesive agent on the reduction of adhesion in a rabbit laminectomy model. J Korean Neurosurg Soc  2016;59:250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156. Banasiewicz  T, Horbacka  K, Karoń  J, Malinger  S, Antos  F, Rudzki  S  et al.  Preliminary study with SprayShieldTM adhesion barrier system in the prevention of abdominal adhesions. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne  2013;8:301–309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157. Johns  DA, Ferland  R, Dunn  R. Initial feasibility study of a sprayable hydrogel adhesion barrier system in patients undergoing laparoscopic ovarian surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc  2003;10:334–338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158. Mettler  L, Hucke  J, Bojahr  B, Tinneberg  H-R, Leyland  N, Avelar  R. A safety and efficacy study of a resorbable hydrogel for reduction of post-operative adhesions following myomectomy. Hum Reprod  2008;23:1093–1100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159. Mettler  L, Audebert  A, Lehmann-Willenbrock  E, Schive-Peterhansl  K, Jacobs  VR. A randomized, prospective, controlled, multicenter clinical trial of a sprayable, site-specific adhesion barrier system in patients undergoing myomectomy. Fertil Steril  2004;82:398–404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160. Tjandra  JJ, Chan  MKY. A sprayable hydrogel adhesion barrier facilitates closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy: a randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum  2008;51:956–960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161. ten Broek  RPG, Kok-Krant  N, Verhoeve  HR, van Goor  H, Bakkum  EA. Efficacy of polyethylene glycol adhesion barrier after gynecological laparoscopic surgery: results of a randomized controlled pilot study. Gynecol Surg  2012;9:29–35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162. Tchartchian  G, Hackethal  A, Herrmann  A, Bojahr  B, Wallwiener  C, Ohlinger  R  et al.  Evaluation of SprayShieldTM adhesion barrier in a single center: randomized controlled study in 15 women undergoing reconstructive surgery after laparoscopic myomectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet  2014;290:697–704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163. Mettler  L, Audebert  A, Lehmann-Willenbrock  E, Jacobs  VR, Schive  K. New adhesion prevention concept in gynecological surgery. JSLS  2003;7:207–209 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164. Mettler  L. Pelvic adhesions: laparoscopic approach. Ann N Y Acad Sci  2003;997:255–268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165. Kim  SG, Song  KY, Lee  HH, Kim  EY, Lee  JH, Jeon  HM  et al.  Efficacy of an antiadhesive agent for the prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions after radical gastrectomy: a prospective randomized, multicenter trial. Medicine (Baltimore)  2019;98:e15141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166. Pihlajamäki  H, Tynninen  O, Karjalainen  P, Rokkanen  P. The impact of polyglycolide membrane on a tendon after surgical rejoining. A histological and histomorphometric analysis in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res A  2007;81:987–993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167. Fukuhira  Y, Ito  M, Kaneko  H, Sumi  Y, Tanaka  M, Yamamoto  S  et al.  Prevention of postoperative adhesions by a novel honeycomb-patterned poly(lactide) film in a rat experimental model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater  2008;86:353–359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168. Avital  S, Bollinger  TJ, Wilkinson  JD, Marchetti  F, Hellinger  MD, Sands  LR. Preventing intra-abdominal adhesions with polylactic acid film: an animal study. Dis Colon Rectum  2005;48:153–157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169. Jiang  S, Zhao  X, Chen  S, Pan  G, Song  J, He  N  et al.  Down-regulating ERK1/2 and SMAD2/3 phosphorylation by physical barrier of celecoxib-loaded electrospun fibrous membranes prevents tendon adhesions. Biomaterials  2014;35:9920–9929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170. Zong  X, Li  S, Chen  E, Garlick  B, Kim  K, Fang  D  et al.  Prevention of postsurgery-induced abdominal adhesions by electrospun bioabsorbable nanofibrous poly(lactide-co-glycolide)-based membranes. Ann Surg  2004;240:910–915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171. Ozpolat  B, Gunal  N, Pekcan  Z, Ayva  ES, Bozdogan  O, Gunaydin  S  et al.  Polylactic acid and polyethylene glycol prevent surgical adhesions. Bratisl Med J  2016;116:54–58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172. Hu  C, Liu  S, Zhang  Y, Li  B, Yang  H, Fan  C  et al.  Long-term drug release from electrospun fibers for in vivo inflammation prevention in the prevention of peritendinous adhesions. Acta Biomater  2013;9:7381–7388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173. Lodge  AJ, Wells  WJ, Backer  CL, O’Brien  JE, Austin  EH, Bacha  EA  et al.  A novel bioresorbable film reduces postoperative adhesions after infant cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg  2008;86:614–621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174. Schreinemacher  MHF, Emans  PJ, Gijbels  MJJ, Greve  J-WM, Beets  GL, Bouvy  ND. Degradation of mesh coatings and intraperitoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model. Br J Surg  2009;96:305–313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175. Townsend  KL, Race  A, Keane  M, Miller  W, Dishaw  L, Fisher  ER  et al.  A novel hydrogel-coated polyester mesh prevents postsurgical adhesions in a rat model. J Surg Res  2011;167:e117–e124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176. Weis  C, Odermatt  EK. A-part gel: an efficient adhesion prevention barrier. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater  2007;82:174–182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177. Bae  S-H, Son  S-R, Kumar Sakar  S, Nguyen  T-H, Kim  S-W, Min  Y-K  et al.  Evaluation of the potential anti-adhesion effect of the PVA/gelatin membrane: PVA/gelatin membrane. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater  2014;102:840–849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178. Weis  C, Odermatt  EK, Kressler  J, Funke  Z, Wehner  T, Freytag  D. Poly(vinyl alcohol) membranes for adhesion prevention. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater  2004;70:191–202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179. Renz  BW, Leitner  K, Odermatt  E, Worthley  DL, Angele  MK, Jauch  K-W  et al.  PVA gel as a potential adhesion barrier: a safety study in a large animal model of intestinal surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg  2014;399:349–357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180. Lang  RA, Grüntzig  PM, Weisgerber  C, Weis  C, Odermatt  EK, Kirschner  MH. Polyvinyl alcohol gel prevents abdominal adhesion formation in a rabbit model. Fertil Steril  2007;88:1180–1186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181. Lalountas  M, Ballas  KD, Michalakis  A, Psarras  K, Asteriou  C, Giakoustidis  DE  et al.  Postoperative adhesion prevention using a statin-containing cellulose film in an experimental model. Br J Surg  2012;99:423–429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182. Kalem  M, Şahin  E, Songür  M, Zehir  S, Armangil  M, Demirtaş  MA. Role of anti-adhesive barriers following rotator cuff repair surgery: an experimental study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc  2016;50:227–233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183. Tandon  A, Shahzad  K, Pathak  S, Oommen  C, Nunes  Q, Smart  N. ParietexTM Composite mesh versus DynaMesh®-IPOM for laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl  2016;98:568–573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184. Ko  JE, Ko  Y-G, Kim  WI, Kwon  OK, Kwon  OH. Nanofiber mats composed of a chitosan-poly(d, l -lactic-co-glycolic acid)-poly(ethylene oxide) blend as a postoperative anti-adhesion agent: chitosan-PLGA-PEO blend nanofibers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater  2017;105:1906–1915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185. Chou  P-Y, Chen  S-H, Chen  C-H, Chen  S-H, Fong  YT, Chen  J-P. Thermo-responsive in-situ forming hydrogels as barriers to prevent post-operative peritendinous adhesion. Acta Biomater  2017;63:85–95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186. Murakami  T, Hijikuro  I, Yamashita  K, Tsunoda  S, Hirai  K, Suzuki  T  et al.  Antiadhesion effect of the C17 glycerin ester of isoprenoid-type lipid forming a nonlamellar liquid crystal. Acta Biomater  2019;84:257–267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187. El-Sayed  N, Galal  S, El-Gowelli  H, El-Khordagui  L. Inhibition of postsurgical adhesions by methylene blue-loaded nanofibers versus cast film matrices. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed  2016;27:1029–1044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188. Gunay  E, Abuoglu  HH, Uzunoglu  H, Sunamak  O, Akyuz  C. Efficacy level of dimethyl-sulfoxide (DMSO) in the prevention of peritoneal adhesions: an experimental rat model. Int J Clin Exp Med  2019;12:705–711 [Google Scholar]
  • 189. Liu  S, Pan  G, Liu  G, Neves  Jd, Song  S, Chen  S  et al.  Electrospun fibrous membranes featuring sustained release of ibuprofen reduce adhesion and improve neurological function following lumbar laminectomy. J Control Release  2017;264:1–13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190. Shin  YC, Yang  WJ, Lee  JH, Oh  J-W, Kim  TW, Park  JC  et al.  PLGA nanofiber membranes loaded with epigallocatechin-3-O-gallate are beneficial to prevention of postsurgical adhesions. Int J Nanomedicine  2014;9:4067–4078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191. Whitfield  RR, Stills  HF, Huls  HR, Crouch  JM, Hurd  WW. Effects of peritoneal closure and suture material on adhesion formation in a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol  2007;197:644.e1–644.e5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192. Sekiba  K. Use of Interceed(TC7) absorbable adhesion barrier to reduce postoperative adhesion reformation in infertility and endometriosis surgery. The Obstetrics and Gynecology Adhesion Prevention Committee. Obstet Gynecol  1992;79:518–522 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193. Chung  Y-J, An  S-Y, Yeon  J-Y, Shim  WS, Mo  J-H. Effect of a chitosan gel on hemostasis and prevention of adhesion after endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol  2016;9:143–149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194. Zhou  J, Liwski  RS, Elson  C, Lee  TDG. Reduction in postsurgical adhesion formation after cardiac surgery in a rabbit model using N, O-carboxymethyl chitosan to block cell adherence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2008;135:777–783 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195. Li  C, Wang  H, Liu  H, Yin  J, Cui  L, Chen  Z. The prevention effect of poly(l-glutamic acid)/chitosan on spinal epidural fibrosis and peridural adhesion in the post-laminectomy rabbit model. Eur Spine J  2014;23:2423–2431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196. ten Broek  RPG, Bakkum  EA, Laarhoven  CJHM, van Goor  H. Epidemiology and prevention of postsurgical adhesions revisited. Ann Surg  2016;263:12–19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

zrac075_Supplementary_Data

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, M.W., upon reasonable request.


Articles from BJS Open are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES