The Effects of Anti-Adhesion Materials in Preventing Postoperative Adhesion in Abdominal Cavity (Anti-Adhesion Materials for Postoperative Adhesions)
- 304 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of anti-adhesion materials in postoperative adhesions.
Materials and Methods
Rats were assigned to five groups: Group 1: Control. Group 2: chitin layers were used. Group 3: Na-hyaluronate / carboxymethylcellulose layers were used. Group 4: Na-hyaluronate gel was poured into the abdomen. Group 5: methylprednisolone was injected. The adhesion frequency and grade were scored according to Granat. Blood was taken for Hb, AST, BUN and albumin levels determination.
The adhesion frequencies (right and left) and grades were as follow in Groups; I: 82%, 91%, 2.63 ± 1.22; II: 8.3%, 25%, 0.58 ± 0.66; III: 17%, 33%, 1.08 ± 1.08; IV: 50%, 58%, 1.41 ± 1.44; V: 50%, 42%, 1.41 ± 1.50. The adhesion phase in all study groups was found significantly low compared to control group, p < 0.05. No difference was observed among serologic and hematological parameters in all groups.
All the materials used significantly lowered the adhesion frequency and grade.
Key wordspostoperative adhesion anti-adhesion materials abdominal cavity
- 1.Ellis, H. 1978. Wound repair-reaction of the peritoneum to injury. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. 60:219–221.Google Scholar
- 2.Sahin, M., B. Gürocak, S. Tavlı, et al. Effects of different doses of stefsroid in the prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions. Int. J. Surg. Investig. 3:301–306.Google Scholar
- 3.Kazman, S. H., M. Belviranl, M. ahin, et al. 1997. Mekanik intestinal obstrüksiyona bal opere edilmi hastalarn klinik analizi. T. Klin. 17:203–209.Google Scholar
- 8.Raf, L. E. 1969. Causes of abdominal adhesions in cases of intestinal obstructions. Acta Chir. Scand. 135:75–76.Google Scholar
- 11.Özer, . B., E. Kaymak, et al. 1990. Peritonun yaralanmaya kar reaksiyonu ve periton içi yapklk problemi (In Turkish). zmir Devlet Hastanesi Tp Dergisi 28:237–243.Google Scholar
- 15.Le Grand, E. K., K. E. Rodgers, W. Girgis, et al. 1995. Comparative efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and ani-thromboxane agents in a rabbit adhesion-prevention model. J. Invest. Surg. 830:187–191.Google Scholar
- 20.Dargenio, R., Cimino, C., Ragusa, G., et al. 1986. Pharmacological prevention of postoperative adhesions experimentally induced in the rat. Actu. Eur. Fertil. 17:272–276.Google Scholar
- 21.Diamond, M. P., and A. H. DeCherney. 1987. Pathogenesis of adhesion formation/reformation; application to reproduce pelvic surgery. Microsurgery 8:101–107.Google Scholar
- 24.Christin, D., and P. Buchmann. 1991. Peritoneal adhesions after laparotomy: prophylactic measures. Hepato-Gastroenterol. 38:283–286.Google Scholar
- 29.Takeuchi, H., H. Yamamoto, T. Niwa, et al. 1994. Mucoadhesion of polymer-coated liposomes to rat intestine in vitro. Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 42(9):1954–1956.Google Scholar
- 31.Biagini, G. 1991. Wound management with N-carboxy butyl chitosan. Biomaterials 12:28–31.Google Scholar
- 34.Avsar, F. M., M. ahin, H. Özel, et al. 2001. Effects of hyaluronic acid derivatives on the postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Int. J. Surg. Investig. 3:437–442.Google Scholar