Remote Efficacy for Two Different Forms of Hyaluronate-Based Adhesion Barriers

ABSTRACT Background: Chemically modified sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose (HA/CMC) membrane clinically reduces adhesion formation following surgery but was not designed for laparoscopic use. HA/CMC powder of identical chemical composition has been developed to allow for application laparoscopically. We compared the adhesion reduction efficacy of HA/CMC powder and film when applied directly to or remote from sites of surgical trauma. We also investigated the effect of the powder on wound healing. Materials and Methods: Two animal models of adhesion formation were used to evaluate efficacy: a rat peritoneal sidewall defect model and a rabbit cecal abrasion/sidewall defect model. The products were applied directly to the defect or the contralateral sidewall. Adhesions were examined seven days after surgery. In a separate study, the effect of the powder on healing was evaluated at 5, 7, and 28 days using a rat incisional wound strength model. Results: HA/CMC powder and film, when applied directly to the peritoneal defect, significantly reduced adhesions relative to the untreated control in both models. Remote applications of HA/CMC powder also reduced adhesions. In contrast, remote applications of HA/CMC film had no effect. HA/CMC powder did not significantly alter incisional wound strength at any of the timepoints tested. Conclusion: In our preclinical models, HA/CMC powder had similar adhesion reduction efficacy to HA/CMC film when applied directly to sites of trauma. In addition, HA/CMC powder reduced adhesions remote from the application site. Importantly, HA/CMC powder did not impair incisional wound healing. On the basis of these results, future investigation of HA/CMC powder is warranted.

[1]  S. Dias,et al.  Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  H. Ellis,et al.  Medico-legal consequences of post-operative intra-abdominal adhesions. , 2009, International journal of surgery.

[3]  J. Becker,et al.  An FDA Approved Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist is Effective in Reducing Intraabdominal Adhesions when Administered Intraperitoneally, But Not Orally , 2008, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[4]  Yu-Hsiang Chang,et al.  A novel technique to apply a Seprafilm (hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose) barrier following laparoscopic surgeries. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[5]  H. Unalp,et al.  Effect of Hyaluronic Acid-carboxymethylcellulose Adhesion Barrier on Wound Healing: An Experimental Study. , 2008, Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice.

[6]  J. Becker,et al.  Pharmacologic Inhibition of Adhesion Formation and Peritoneal Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator Activity , 2008, Seminars in reproductive medicine.

[7]  J. Becker,et al.  An FDA Approved Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist is Effective in Reducing Intraabdominal Adhesions when Administered Intraperitoneally, But Not Orally , 2008, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[8]  J. Becker,et al.  Practical Limitations of Bioresorbable Membranes in the Prevention of Intra-Abdominal Adhesions , 2008, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[9]  H. Goor.  Consequences and complications of peritoneal adhesions , 2007 .

[10]  J. Becker,et al.  Statins (HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors) Decrease Postoperative Adhesions by Increasing Peritoneal Fibrinolytic Activity , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[11]  H. Takeuchi,et al.  A novel instrument and technique for using Seprafilm hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose membrane during laparoscopic myomectomy. , 2006, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[12]  R. Lilford,et al.  Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  M. Parker,et al.  The SCAR‐3 study: 5‐year adhesion‐related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures , 2005, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[14]  M. Kalaycı,et al.  Does Hyaluronic Acid-Carboxymethylcellulose (HA-CMC) Membrane Interfere With the Healing of Intestinal Suture Lines and Abdominal Incisions? , 2005, Surgical innovation.

[15]  H. Ikeuchi,et al.  Bioresorbable Hyaluronate-Carboxymethylcellulose Membrane (Seprafilm) in Surgery for Rectal Carcinoma: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial , 2005, Surgery Today.

[16]  Malcolm S. Wilson.  Cost and economics of adhesions. , 2004, Hospital medicine.

[17]  Z. Cohen,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Study of the Safety of Seprafilm® Adhesion Barrier in Abdominopelvic Surgery of the Intestine , 2003, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[18]  G. Saed,et al.  Seprafilm (modified hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose) acts as a physical barrier. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  William O Richards,et al.  Laparoscopic adhesiolysis and placement of Seprafilm: a new technique and novel approach to patients with intractable abdominal pain. , 2002, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[20]  H. van Goor,et al.  Hyaluronic acid‐based agents do not affect anastomotic strength in the rat colon, in either the presence or absence of bacterial peritonitis , 2000, The British journal of surgery.

[21]  S. Perry,et al.  Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. , 1998, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[22]  K. Skinner,et al.  Preclinical evaluation of Seprafilm bioresorbable membrane. , 1997, The European journal of surgery. Supplement. : = Acta chirurgica. Supplement.

[23]  M. Diamond,et al.  Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm membrane (HAL-F): a blinded, prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. Seprafilm Adhesion Study Group. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[24]  M. Diamond,et al.  A hyaluronate based gel for the prevention of postsurgical adhesions: evaluation in two animal species. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[25]  S. Stryker,et al.  Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. , 1996, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[26]  M. Medina,et al.  Novel antiadhesion barrier does not prevent anastomotic healing in a rabbit model. , 1995, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[27]  D. Menzies.  Peritoneal adhesions. Incidence, cause, and prevention. , 1992, Surgery annual.

[28]  H. Ellis,et al.  The role of plasminogen activator in adhesion prevention. , 1991, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[29]  H. Ellis,et al.  Intestinal obstruction from adhesions--how big is the problem? , 1990, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[30]  H. Ellis,et al.  The aetiology of post‐operative abdominal adhesions an experimental study , 1962, The British journal of surgery.