Abstract
Abstract
Importance
The formation of adhesions after gynecological surgery not only has detrimental impacts on those affected, including pain, obstruction, and infertility, but also imposes a high economic burden on healthcare systems worldwide.
Objective
The aim of this review was to evaluate the adhesion prevention potential of all currently available adhesion barriers for gynecological surgery.
Evidence acquisition
We systematically searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of adhesion barriers as compared with peritoneal irrigation or no treatment in gynecological surgery. Only RCTs with second-look surgery to evaluate adhesions in the pelvic/abdominal (but not intrauterine) cavity were included.
Results
We included 45 RCTs with a total of 4,120 patients examining a total of 10 unique types of barriers in second-look gynecological surgery. While RCTs on oxidized regenerated cellulose (significant improvement in 6 of 14 trials), polyethylene glycol with/without other agents (4/10), hyaluronic acid and hyaluronate + carboxymethylcellulose (7/10), icodextrin (1/3), dextran (0/3), fibrin-containing agents (1/2), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (1/1), N,O-carboxymethylchitosan (0/1), and modified starch (1/1) overall showed inconsistent findings, results for expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, hyaluronic acid, and modified starch yielded the greatest improvements regarding adhesion reduction at 75%, 0–67%, and 85%, respectively.
Conclusions and relevance
Best results for adhesion prevention were reported after applying Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane, hyaluronic acid, and 4DryField®. As Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane is nonabsorbable, it is associated with a greater risk of new adhesion formation due to second-look surgery to remove the product. 4DryField® yielded the greatest improvement in adhesion score compared to all other barrier agents (85%). For better comparability, future studies should use standardized scores and put more emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures, such as pain and infertility.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference101 articles.
1. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society of Reproductive
Surgeons (2013) Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgery: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 99(6):1550–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.031
2. Brüggmann D, Tchartchian G, Wallwiener M, Münstedt K, Tinneberg HR, Hackethal A (2010) Intra-abdominal adhesions: definition, origin, significance in surgical practice, and treatment options. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int 107(44):769–775
3. Pados G, Venetis CA, Almaloglou K, Tarlatzis BC (2010) Prevention of intra-peritoneal adhesions in gynaecological surgery: theory and evidence. Reprod Biomed Online 21(3):290–303
4. Trew G (2004) Consensus in adhesion reduction management. Obstetrician Gynaecologist 6(2):1–16
5. Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine PM, Dervenis C, Young RL (2001) Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical significance. Recent advances in prevention and management. Dig Surgery. 18(4):260–273