Abstract
This randomized blind study evaluated the effect of pantothenic acid on postoperative adhesion formation in euestrogenic and hypoestrogenic environment. We used the rat uterine horn model in a university-based laboratory setting. Thirty-six Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into two estrogenic environments: euestrogenic and hypoestrogenic. The hypoestrogenic condition was achieved in 21 rats by either the administration of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist or ovariectomy. The remaining 15 rats were untreated and remained in the regular estrogenic state. The left uterine horn was subjected to a lesion by serosal denudation at laparotomy. Following the uterine horn surgery, the rats within each environment were randomized into three treatment groups: saline (control), intraperitoneal pantothenic acid and intramuscular pantothenic acid. The degree of adhesions ten days following surgery was scored by an evaluated blinded to the rat’s estrogenic condition and treatment. In the hypoestrogenic environment, there were no differences in the mean adhesions scores by treatment. In euestrogenic rats, the intraperitoneal pantothenic acid group had a higher mean adhesion score than intramuscular pantothenic acid, but neither treatment mean differed from that of the saline group. There was no difference in the mean adhesion scores of the saline groups by estrogenic environment. We concluded that pantothenic acid was not found to decrease adhesions formation when administered intraperitoneally or intramuscularly at these dosages. Contrary to previous reports, the hypoestrogenic condition alone was not found to be associated with decreased adhesion formation in our study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: January 1999 / Accepted: 23 September 1999
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sonmez, A., Lurie, D. & Chuong, C. Effects of pantothenic acid on postoperative adhesion formation in a rat uterine horn model. Arch Gynecol Obstet 263, 164–167 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004040050274
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004040050274