Sporopollenin-based material for prevention of postoperative adhesions: a murine study.

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q3 SURGERY

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.4174/astr.2025.108.4.256

Wei Beng Ng, Ian Ee En Sim, Wean Sin Cheow, Young Jun Chai

{"title":"Sporopollenin-based material for prevention of postoperative adhesions: a murine study.","authors":"Wei Beng Ng, Ian Ee En Sim, Wean Sin Cheow, Young Jun Chai","doi":"10.4174/astr.2025.108.4.256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the antiadhesive effect and safety of a novel adhesion barrier device (ABD) in comparison to other commercially available anti-adhesion products.Methods: A 4-arm, controlled, blinded, experimental, and murine model study design was used. Forty male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly allocated to Interceed, Seprafilm, ABD, and control groups (n = 10/group). Abdominal cavity trauma was induced in all rats. Interceed, Seprafilm, or the ABD were applied to the injury site of each rat according to their respective groups, the control group received no intervention.Results: Twenty-one days after the operation, surgical adhesion severity and area scores were significantly reduced in the Interceed, Seprafilm, and ABD groups compared to the control group (P = 0.016, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively), and in the ABD group compared to the Interceed group (P = 0.036). No significant difference was observed between the ABD and Seprafilm groups (P = 0.070). Additionally, in the ABD group, no remnants of the ABD were observed at the injury site, and no hematological abnormalities were present.Conclusion: The ABD has the potential to improve postsurgical peritoneal adhesions compared to Interceed and has comparable effectiveness compared to Seprafilm. The ABD may be a valuable option to reduce surgical failure. Further studies in human subjects are warranted to determine the clinical application and safety of the ABD for commercialization.","PeriodicalId":8071,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","volume":"108 4","pages":"256-269"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11982447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2025.108.4.256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the antiadhesive effect and safety of a novel adhesion barrier device (ABD) in comparison to other commercially available anti-adhesion products.

Methods: A 4-arm, controlled, blinded, experimental, and murine model study design was used. Forty male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly allocated to Interceed, Seprafilm, ABD, and control groups (n = 10/group). Abdominal cavity trauma was induced in all rats. Interceed, Seprafilm, or the ABD were applied to the injury site of each rat according to their respective groups, the control group received no intervention.

Results: Twenty-one days after the operation, surgical adhesion severity and area scores were significantly reduced in the Interceed, Seprafilm, and ABD groups compared to the control group (P = 0.016, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively), and in the ABD group compared to the Interceed group (P = 0.036). No significant difference was observed between the ABD and Seprafilm groups (P = 0.070). Additionally, in the ABD group, no remnants of the ABD were observed at the injury site, and no hematological abnormalities were present.

Conclusion: The ABD has the potential to improve postsurgical peritoneal adhesions compared to Interceed and has comparable effectiveness compared to Seprafilm. The ABD may be a valuable option to reduce surgical failure. Further studies in human subjects are warranted to determine the clinical application and safety of the ABD for commercialization.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于孢粉素的材料预防术后粘连：一项小鼠研究。

目的：本研究评估了一种新型粘附屏障装置（ABD）的抗粘附效果和安全性，并与其他市售抗粘附产品进行了比较。方法：采用四臂、对照、盲法、实验和小鼠模型研究设计。选取雄性Sprague Dawley大鼠40只，随机分为Interceed组、Seprafilm组、ABD组和对照组，每组10只。所有大鼠均行腹腔外伤。将Interceed、separfilm或ABD按组分别涂于大鼠损伤部位，对照组不进行干预。结果：术后21 d， Interceed组、Seprafilm组和ABD组手术粘连严重程度和面积评分较对照组显著降低（P = 0.016, P < 0.001, P < 0.001）， ABD组较Interceed组显著降低（P = 0.036）。ABD组与sepilfilm组间无显著差异（P = 0.070）。此外，在ABD组中，在损伤部位未观察到ABD的残留物，也未出现血液学异常。结论：与Interceed相比，ABD具有改善术后腹膜粘连的潜力，与sepilfilm相比，ABD的效果相当。ABD可能是减少手术失败的一个有价值的选择。需要进一步的人体研究来确定ABD的临床应用和商业化的安全性。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research SURGERY-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Manuscripts to the Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research (Ann Surg Treat Res) should be written in English according to the instructions for authors. If the details are not described below, the style should follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications available at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website (http://www.icmje.org).