Efficacy and safety of hyaluronate membrane in the rabbit cecum-abdominal wall adhesion model.

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society Pub Date : 2013-08-01 Epub Date: 2013-07-25 DOI:10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.51
Jae Young Kim, Wan Jin Cho, Jun Ho Kim, Sae Hwan Lim, Hyun Jung Kim, Young Woo Lee, Sung Won Kwon
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of hyaluronate membrane in the rabbit cecum-abdominal wall adhesion model.","authors":"Jae Young Kim,&nbsp;Wan Jin Cho,&nbsp;Jun Ho Kim,&nbsp;Sae Hwan Lim,&nbsp;Hyun Jung Kim,&nbsp;Young Woo Lee,&nbsp;Sung Won Kwon","doi":"10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Tissue adhesion is a well-known postsurgical phenomenon, causing pain, functional obstruction, and difficult reoperative surgery. To overcome these problems, various synthetic and natural polymer membranes have been developed as postoperative tissue adhesion barriers. However, limitation in their use has hindered its actual application. We prepared a hyaluronate membrane (HM) to evaluate its efficacy and safety as an adhesion barrier compared to a commercialized product (Interceed, Ethicon).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the antiadhesion effect, a cecum-abdominal wall abrasion model was adopted in a rabbit. The denuded cecum was covered by Interceed or HM or neither and apposed to the abdominal wall (each, n = 10). Four weeks after surgery, the level of adhesion was graded. Acute and chronic toxicity of the three groups were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Blood samples drawn to evaluate acute toxicity at postoperative day 3 and 7 showed no significant difference among the three groups. The grade and area of adhesion were significantly lower in the HM compared to those of the control and Interceed at four weeks after surgery. Histologic evaluations, which was carried out to estimate tissue reactions at the site of application, as well as to assess chronic toxicity for the major organs, were not significantly different in the three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that the antiadhesion efficacy of HM was superior to commercialized antiadhesion membrane, Interceed. Low inflammatory response and nontoxicity were also demonstrated. From these results, we suggest that the HM is a good candidate as a tissue adhesion barrier.</p>","PeriodicalId":49991,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.51","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Purpose: Tissue adhesion is a well-known postsurgical phenomenon, causing pain, functional obstruction, and difficult reoperative surgery. To overcome these problems, various synthetic and natural polymer membranes have been developed as postoperative tissue adhesion barriers. However, limitation in their use has hindered its actual application. We prepared a hyaluronate membrane (HM) to evaluate its efficacy and safety as an adhesion barrier compared to a commercialized product (Interceed, Ethicon).

Methods: To evaluate the antiadhesion effect, a cecum-abdominal wall abrasion model was adopted in a rabbit. The denuded cecum was covered by Interceed or HM or neither and apposed to the abdominal wall (each, n = 10). Four weeks after surgery, the level of adhesion was graded. Acute and chronic toxicity of the three groups were also evaluated.

Results: Blood samples drawn to evaluate acute toxicity at postoperative day 3 and 7 showed no significant difference among the three groups. The grade and area of adhesion were significantly lower in the HM compared to those of the control and Interceed at four weeks after surgery. Histologic evaluations, which was carried out to estimate tissue reactions at the site of application, as well as to assess chronic toxicity for the major organs, were not significantly different in the three groups.

Conclusion: This study showed that the antiadhesion efficacy of HM was superior to commercialized antiadhesion membrane, Interceed. Low inflammatory response and nontoxicity were also demonstrated. From these results, we suggest that the HM is a good candidate as a tissue adhesion barrier.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
透明质酸膜在兔盲肠-腹壁粘连模型中的疗效和安全性。
目的:组织粘连是一种众所周知的术后现象,引起疼痛、功能阻塞和再手术困难。为了克服这些问题,人们开发了各种合成和天然聚合物膜作为术后组织粘附屏障。然而,其使用的局限性阻碍了其实际应用。我们制备了一种透明质酸膜(HM),与商业化产品(Interceed, Ethicon)相比,评估其作为粘附屏障的有效性和安全性。方法:采用家兔盲肠-腹壁磨损模型,观察其抗粘连效果。剥去的盲肠被Interceed或HM或两者都不覆盖,并贴于腹壁(每种,n = 10)。术后4周,对粘连程度进行分级。并对三组的急性和慢性毒性进行了评价。结果:术后第3天和第7天采血评估急性毒性,三组间无显著差异。术后四周,HM组的粘连程度和粘连面积明显低于对照组和Interceed组。组织学评估,用于评估应用部位的组织反应,以及评估主要器官的慢性毒性,在三组中没有显着差异。结论:HM的抗黏附效果优于商品化的Interceed抗黏附膜。低炎症反应和无毒性也被证明。从这些结果,我们认为HM是一个很好的候选组织粘附屏障。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Matrix Metalloproteinase 41 : inside the presidency of George H.W. Bush Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in mucosal gastric cancer and re-evaluation of endoscopic submucosal dissection The optimal follow-up period in patients with above 5-year disease-free survival after curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1