These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prevention of adhesion formations following repair of abdominal wall defects with prosthetic materials (an experimental study).
    Author: Alimoglu O, Akcakaya A, Sahin M, Unlu Y, Ozkan OV, Sanli E, Eryilmaz R.
    Journal: Hepatogastroenterology; 2003; 50(51):725-8. PubMed ID: 12828071.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adhesion formation after abdominal surgery or incisional hernia repair with prosthetic materials may cause chronic pain, intestinal obstruction, enterocutaneous fistulae, difficulty in reoperative procedures and infertility in females. The aim of this study was to compare different modalities in terms of adhesion prevention in a rat model of abdominal wall defect repaired with prosthetic materials. METHODOLOGY: Forty-eight female Wistar-Albino rats were divided into four groups. In all rats, laparotomy was performed through a 3-cm midline incision and an abdominal wall defect (2 x 3 cm) was created in rats in groups II, III and IV. Following procedures were performed in all rats: seroza of the cecum was abraded and sutured with 4-0 silk and two ischemic buttons were created by ligating with 4-0 silk on the left and right sides of abdominal parietal peritoneum. In Group I, abdominal closure was obtained with a running 4-0 prolene suture. In Group II, abdominal wall defect was repaired with polypropylene mesh. In Group III, Seprafilm, an absorbable adhesion barrier, was laid over the abdominal viscera and defect was repaired with polypropylene mesh. In Group IV, defect was repaired with Composix mesh. Adhesion density score, adhered organ and strength of mesh incorporation were evaluated. Biochemical analysis and histopathological examination were performed. RESULTS: Groups II and III had more adhesion density scores than groups I and IV, (P < 0.001). Group II had more cecal and ischemic button adhesions than groups I, III and IV, (P < 0.001). Strength of mesh incorporation was higher in groups II and III than group IV, (P < 0.001). Abscess formation was more common in group IV than those in groups II and III, (P < 0.001). There were no differences between groups, regarding serum levels of C-reactive protein and fibrinogen. The most common adhered organ was omentum. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single treatment modality to prevent adhesion formation after abdominal wall defect repaired with prosthetic materials. While intraperitoneal adhesions were less common in Seprafilm group, adhesions to mesh were less common in the Composix mesh group.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]