title: Prevention of adhesion formations following repair of abdominal wall defects with prosthetic materials (an experimental study).
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Adhesion formation after abdominal surgery or incisional hernia repair with prosthetic materials may cause chronic pain, intestinal obstruction, enterocutaneous fistulae, difficulty in reoperative procedures and infertility in females. The aim of this study was to compare different modalities in terms of adhesion prevention in a rat model of abdominal wall defect repaired with prosthetic materials.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-eight female Wistar-Albino rats were divided into four groups. In all rats, laparotomy was performed through a 3-cm midline incision and an abdominal wall defect (2 x 3 cm) was created in rats in groups II, III and IV. Following procedures were performed in all rats: seroza of the cecum was abraded and sutured with 4-0 silk and two ischemic buttons were created by ligating with 4-0 silk on the left and right sides of abdominal parietal peritoneum. In Group I, abdominal closure was obtained with a running 4-0 prolene suture. In Group II, abdominal wall defect was repaired with polypropylene mesh. In Group III, Seprafilm, an absorbable adhesion barrier, was laid over the abdominal viscera and defect was repaired with polypropylene mesh. In Group IV, defect was repaired with Composix mesh. Adhesion density score, adhered organ and strength of mesh incorporation were evaluated. Biochemical analysis and histopathological examination were performed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Groups II and III had more adhesion density scores than groups I and IV, (P < 0.001). Group II had more cecal and ischemic button adhesions than groups I, III and IV, (P < 0.001). Strength of mesh incorporation was higher in groups II and III than group IV, (P < 0.001). Abscess formation was more common in group IV than those in groups II and III, (P < 0.001). There were no differences between groups, regarding serum levels of C-reactive protein and fibrinogen. The most common adhered organ was omentum.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no single treatment modality to prevent adhesion formation after abdominal wall defect repaired with prosthetic materials. While intraperitoneal adhesions were less common in Seprafilm group, adhesions to mesh were less common in the Composix mesh group.
authors.affiliation: First Department of Surgery, Vakif Gureba Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. oalimoglu@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Orhan
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Alimoglu
authors.forename: Adem
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Akcakaya
authors.forename: Mustafa
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sahin
authors.forename: Yasar
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Unlu
authors.forename: Orhan V
authors.initials: OV
authors.lastname: Ozkan
authors.forename: Erdal
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Sanli
authors.forename: Ramazan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Eryilmaz
mesh_terms: D034861:Abdominal Wall / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D000818:Animals; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D005260:Female; D006820:Hyaluronic Acid; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D009852:Omentum / Q000473:pathology; D010532:Peritoneal Diseases / Q000473:pathology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011126:Polypropylenes; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000473:pathology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D000267:Tissue Adhesions / Q000473:pathology / Q000517:prevention & control; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000502:physiology
chemical_list: D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D011126:Polypropylenes; C118198:Seprafilm; D006820:Hyaluronic Acid