Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Peritoneal Adhesion Prevention Devices in a Rat Model

BACKGROUND Abdominal operations are followed by adhesions, a prevalent cause of abdominal pain, and the most frequent cause for bowel obstruction and secondary female infertility. This rat study addresses adhesion prevention capability of Adept(®), Interceed(®), Seprafilm(®), and a novel device, 4DryField(®) PH which is provided as powder and generates its effect as gel. METHODS Sixty-eight male Lewis rats had cecal abrasion and creation of an equally sized abdominal wall defect, and were grouped randomly: A control group without treatment (n=10); two groups treated with 4DryField(®) PH using premixed gel (n=15) or in-situ gel technique (n=16); one group each was treated with Seprafilm(®) (n=8), Interceed(®) (n=9), or Adept(®) (n=10). Sacrifice was on day 7 to evaluate incidence, quality, and quantity of adhesions, as expressed via adhesion reduction rate (AR). Histologic specimens were evaluated. Statistical analyses used ANOVA and unpaired t-tests. RESULTS 4DryField(®) PH significantly reduced incidence and severity of adhesions both as premixed gel (AR: 85.2%) and as in-situ made gel (AR: 100%), a comparison between these two application techniques showed no differences in efficacy. Seprafilm(®) did not reduce incidence but severity of adhesions significantly (AR: 53.5%). With Interceed(®) (AR: 3.7%) and Adept(®) (AR: 16.1%) no significant adhesion-reduction was achieved. Except for inflammatory response with Interceed(®), histopathology showed good tissue compatibility of all other devices. CONCLUSION 4DryField(®) PH and Seprafilm(®) showed significant adhesion prevention capabilities. 4DryField(®) PH achieved the highest adhesion prevention effectiveness without restrictions concerning mode of application and compatibility and, thus, is a promising strategy to prevent abdominal adhesions.