» Articles » PMID: 38250612

Comparison of Adhesion Prevention Capabilities of the Modified Starch Powder-based Medical Devices 4DryField PH, HaemoCer™ PLUS and StarSil in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model

Overview
Journal Int J Med Sci
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2024 Jan 22
PMID 38250612
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The rat Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model (OPAM) was developed to provoke adhesion formation with high reproducibility in incidence and extent. In a recent study, the starch-based hemostats 4DryField PH and Arista AH were tested for their capabilities to prevent adhesion formation, the former one certified for adhesion prevention and hemostasis, the latter one only certified for hemostasis. As two further starch-based hemostats, i.e., HaemoCer PLUS and StarSil, have officially been certified for adhesion prevention in the meantime, the present study was conducted to examine their efficacy. For this purpose, all three products were applied as a powder that was mixed with saline solution to form a barrier gel. Adhesions were scored using the established macroscopically scoring systems by Lauder and Hoffmann, as well as histopathologically using the score by Zühlke. Animals receiving saline solution solely served as controls. As previously published, 4DryField PH reduced peritoneal adhesions significantly. In contrast, HaemoCer PLUS and StarSil did not lead to a statistically significant reduction of adhesion formation. When comparing 4DryField PH, HaemoCer PLUS and StarSil, 4DryField PH was significantly more effective in preventing peritoneal adhesions. The results of the macroscopic investigation were confirmed by histopathological evaluations. Only 4DryField PH but neither HaemoCer PLUS nor StarSil were capable to effectively prevent adhesion formation, corroborating the assumption that starch-based hemostats do not generally have the capability to act as effective adhesion prevention devices.

Citing Articles

Comparative analyses of the hemostatic efficacy and surgical device performance of powdered oxidized regenerated cellulose and starch-based powder formulations.

Stark M, Wang A, Corrigan B, Woldu H, Azizighannad S, Cipolla G Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2025; 9(1):102668.

PMID: 39990099 PMC: 11846926. DOI: 10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102668.


Adhesion Prevention in Gynecologic Surgery: Guidance and Clinical Experience.

Alkatout I, De Wilde R, Herrmann J, Klapdor R, Meinhold-Heerlein I, Meszaros J J Clin Med. 2025; 13(24.

PMID: 39768440 PMC: 11678543. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13247517.


Prevention of peritoneal adhesions after gynecological surgery: a systematic review.

Schaefer S, Alkatout I, Dornhoefer N, Herrmann J, Klapdor R, Meinhold-Heerlein I Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 310(2):655-672.

PMID: 38878233 PMC: 11258159. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07584-1.

References
1.
Menzies D, Ellis H . Intestinal obstruction from adhesions--how big is the problem?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990; 72(1):60-3. PMC: 2499092. View

2.
Gokcelli U, Ercan U, Ilhan E, Argon A, Cukur E, Ureyen O . Prevention of Peritoneal Adhesions by Non-Thermal Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Treatment on Mouse Model: A Proof of Concept Study. J Invest Surg. 2019; 33(7):605-614. DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1550542. View

3.
Hong G, Vilz T, Kalff J, Wehner S . [Peritoneal adhesion formation]. Chirurg. 2015; 86(2):175-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00104-014-2975-8. View

4.
Attard J, MacLean A . Adhesive small bowel obstruction: epidemiology, biology and prevention. Can J Surg. 2007; 50(4):291-300. PMC: 2386166. View

5.
Ellis H, Moran B, Thompson J, Parker M, Wilson M, Menzies D . Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999; 353(9163):1476-80. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09337-4. View