Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T05:32:14.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postsurgical adhesion formation and prevention – recent developments with regard to the consecutive stages in adhesion formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Erica A Bakkum ,
J Baptist Trimbos  and
Trudy CM Trimbos-Kemper
Erica A Bakkum*
Affiliation:
Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, The Netherlands
J Baptist Trimbos
Affiliation:
Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Gouda, The Netherlands
Trudy CM Trimbos-Kemper
Affiliation:
Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Gouda, The Netherlands
*
Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Groene Hart Hospital, Bleulandweg 10, 2803 HH Gouda, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The formation of adhesions is a significant clinical problem. Complications like bowel obstruction and chronic pelvic pain are known to be related to adhesion formation. Besides these complications, adhesions do play an additional role in the gynaecological patient. Interference with the functioning of the fallopian tubes and ovaries disturbs ovum pickup and sperm transport and may compromise the fertility of patients.

Type
Articles
Information
Reproductive Medicine Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 37 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Pfeffer, WH. Adjuvants in tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 1980; 33: 245–56.Google Scholar
2Gomel, V. An odyssey through the oviduct. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 144–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Diamond, E. Lysis of postoperative pelvic adhesions in infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31: 287–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Swolin, K. Experimentelle Studien zur prophylaxe von intraabdominalen Verwachsungen. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1966; 45: 473–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Carson, HW. Evolution of the modern treatment of septic peritonitis. Lancet 1923; 1: 1035–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Payr, E. Iron and magnet in the prophylaxis and treatment of peritoneal adhesions. JAMA 1914; 62: 171.Google Scholar
7Hulka, JF. Adnexal adhesions: a prognostic staging and classification system based on a five-year survey of fertility surgery results at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144: 141–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Hulka, JF, Omran, K, Berger, GS. Classification of adnexal adhesions: a proposal and evaluation of its prognostic value. Fertil Steril 1978; 30: 661–65.Google Scholar
9Caspi, E, Halperin, Y, Bukovsky, I. The importance of periadnexal adhesions in tubai reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31: 296–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Weibel, MA, Majno, G. Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. A postmortem study. Am J Surg 1973; 126: 345–53.Google Scholar
11Brosens, IA, Puttemans, PJ, Deprest, JD. The endoscopie localization of endometrial implants in the ovarian chocolate cyst. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 1034–38.Google Scholar
12Perry, JF, Smith, GD, Yonehiro, EG. Intestinal obstructions caused by adhesions: a review of 388 cases. Ann Surg 1955; 142: 810–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Holtz, G. Prevention and management of peritoneal adhesions. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 497–507.Google ScholarPubMed
14diZerega, GS, Rodgers, KE. The peritoneum. New York: Springer Verlag, 1992; 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Ar'Rajabn, A, Dawidson, I, Sentementes, J, Sikes, P, Harris, R, Mileski, W. Enhancement of peritoneal macrophages reduces postoperative peritoneal adhesion formation. J Surg Res 1995; 58: 307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Montz, FJ, Shiraanuki, T, diZerega, GS. Postsurgical mesothelial re–epithelialization. Reproductive surgery. Chicago: Year Book Medical 1987; 31–47.Google Scholar
17Elkins, TE, Stovall, TG, Warren, J, Ling, FW, Meijer, NL. A histologie evaluation of peritoneal injury and repair; implications for adhesion formation. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 225–29.Google Scholar
18Ellis, H. The aetiology of postoperative abdominal adhesions – an experimental study. Br J Surg 1962; 50: 10–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Thompson, JN, Paterson-Brown, S, Harbourne, T, Whawell, SA, Kalodiki, E, Dudley, HAF. Reduced human peritoneal plasminogen activating activity. Possible mechanism of adhesion formation. Br J Surg 1989; 76: 382–84.Google Scholar
20Buckman, RF, Buckman, PD, Hufnagel, HV, Gervin, AS. A physiologic basis for the adhesion free healing of deperitonealized surfaces. J Surg Res 1976; 21: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Raftery, AT. Regeneration of peritoneum: a fibrinolytic study. J Anal 1979; 129: 659–64.Google ScholarPubMed
22Matas, R, Miller, RT, Heuer, GJ, Halsted, WS. In memoriam William Steward Halsted, 1852–1922. Arch Surg 1925; 10: 293–305.Google Scholar
23Siegler, AM, Kontopoulos, V. An analysis of macrosurgical and microsurgical techniques in the management of the tuboperitoneal factor in infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 377–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Grow, DR, Seltman, HJ, Coddington, CC, Hodgen, GD. The reduction of postoperative adhesions by two different barrier methods versus control in cynomolgus monkeys: a prospective, randomized crossover study. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 1141–46.Google Scholar
25Nordic Adhesion Prevention Study Group. The efficacy of Interceed (TC7) for prevention of reformation of postoperative adhesions on ovaries, fallopian tubes, and fimbriae in microsurgical operations for fertility: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 709–14.Google Scholar
26Ryan, GB, Grobety, J, Majno, G. Postoperative peritoneal adhesions – a study of the mechanisms. Am J Pathol 1911; 65: 117–40.Google Scholar
27Jansen, R. Failure of peritoneal irrigation with heparin during pelvic operations upon young women to reduce adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988; 166: 154–371.Google ScholarPubMed
28Ellis, H. The cause and prevention of postoperative intraperitoneal adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1971; 133: 497–511.Google Scholar
29Tolbert, TW, Brown, JL. Surface powders on surgical gloves. Arch Surg 1980; 115: 729–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Bakkum, EA, Dalmeijer, RAJ, Verdel, MJC, Hermans, J, Van Blitterswijk, CA, Trimbos, JB. Quantitative analysis of the inflammatory reaction surrounding sutures commonly used in operative procedures and the relation to postsurgical adhesion formation. Biomaterials 1995; 16: 1283–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Luciano, AA. Laparotomy versus laparoscopy. In: diZerega, GS, Russell, Malinak L, Diamond, MP, Linsky, CB eds. Treatment of postsurgical adhesions. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1990: 35–44Google Scholar
32Operative Laparoscopy Study Group. Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look procedures. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 700–704.Google Scholar
33Diamond, MP, Danieli, JF, Feste, J et al. Adhesion reformation and de novo adhesion formation after reproductive pelvic surgery. Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 864–66.Google Scholar
34Tulandi, T. Salpingo–ovariolysis: a comparison between laser surgery and electrosurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 489–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Diamond, MP, Danieli, JF, Martin, DC, Feste, J, Vaughn, WK, McLaughlin, DS. Tubai patency and pelvic adhesions at early second-look laparoscopy following intraabdominal use of the carbon dioxide laser: initial report of the intraabdominal laser study group. Fertil Steril 1984; 42: 717–23.Google Scholar
36Duffy, DM, diZerega, GS. Is peritoneal closure necessary. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1994; 49: 817–22.Google Scholar
37Tulandi, T, Hum, HS, Gelfand, MM. Closure of laparotomy incisions with or without peritoneal suturing and second-look laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 536–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Horne, RW Jr, Clyman, M, Debrovner, C et al. The prevention of postoperative adhesions following conservative operative treatment for human infertility. Int J Fertil 1973; 18: 109–15.Google Scholar
39Querleu, D, Vankeerberghen-Deffense, , Boutteville, C. Traitement adjuvant des plasties tubaires. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1989; 18: 935–40.Google Scholar
40Siegler, AM, Kontopoulos, V, Wang, CE. Prevention of postoperative adhesions in rabbits with Ibuprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent. Fertil Steril 1980; 34: 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Bateman, BG, Nunley, WC, Kitechen, JD. Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: an assessment of ibuprofen. Fertil Steril 1982; 38: 107–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Rodgers, KE. Nonsteroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of postsurgical adhesion. In: diZerega, JS, Russell, Malinak L, Diamond, MP, Linsky, CB eds. Treatment of postsurgical adhesions. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1990: 35–44, 119–29.Google ScholarPubMed
43Wiseman, DM, Huang, WJ, Johns, DB, Rodgers, KE, DiZerega, GS. Time-dependent effect of tolmetin sodium in a rabbit uterine adhesion model. J Invest Surg 1994; 7: 527–32.Google Scholar
44Marcovici, I, Rosenzweig, BA, Brill, AI, Scommegna, A. Colchicine and post-inflammatory adhesions in a rabbit model: a dose-response study. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 216–18.Google Scholar
45Kaida, AA, Nazal, M, Gurchumelidze, T, Azhar, Ali M, Dawe, EJ, Silva, YJ. Preoperative administration of antibodies against tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL-1) and their impact on peritoneal adhesion formation. Am Surg 1995; 61: 569–72.Google Scholar
46Snoj, M. Intra-abdominal adhesion formation is initiated by phospholipase A2. Med Hypotheses 1993; 41: 525–28.Google Scholar
47Snoj, M, Ar'Rajab, A, Ahren, B, Bengmark, S. Effect of phosphatidylcholine on postoperative adhesions after small bowel anastomosis in the rat. Br J Surg 79: 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Maurer, JH, Bonaventura, LM. The effect of aqueous progesterone on operative adhesion formation. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 485–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Wright, JA, Sharpe-Timms, KL. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy reduces postoperative adhesion formation and reformation after adhesiolysis in rat models for adhesion formation and endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 1094–100.Google Scholar
50Bouckaert, PXJM, Land, JA, Brommen, EJP, Emeis, JJ, Evers, JHL. The impact of peritoneal trauma on intraabdominal fibrinolytic activity, adhesion formation and early embryonic development in a rabbit longitudinal model. Human Reprod 1990; 5: 237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Henry-Suchet, J, Catalan, F, Loffredo, V et al. Chlamydia trachomatis associated with chronic inflammation in abdominal specimens from women selected for tuboplasty. Fertil Steril 1991; 36: 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52Martin, DC, Khare, VK, Miller, BE. Association of Chlamydia trachomatis immunoglobulin gamma titers with dystrophic peritoneal calcification, psammoma bodies, adhesions, and hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 39–44.Google Scholar
53Steinleitner, A, Lambert, H, Kazensky, C, Sanchez, I, Sueldo, C. Reduction of primary postoperative formation under calcium channel blockade in the rabbit. J Surg Res 1990; 48: 42–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Doody, KJ, Dunn, RC, Buttram, VC. Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator reduces adhesion formation in a rabbit uterine horn model. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 509–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Menzies, D, Ellis, H. Intra-abdominal adhesions and their prevention by topical tissue plasminogen activator. J R Soc Med 1989; 82: 534–35.Google Scholar
56Gehlbach, DL, O'Hair, KC, Parks, AL, Rosa, C. Combined effects of tissue plasminogen activator and carboxymethylcellulose on adhesion reformation in rabbits. Int J Fertil 1994; 39: 172–76.Google Scholar
57Holden, M, Adams, LB. Inhibitory effect of cortisone acetate and hydrocortisone on growth of fibroblasts. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1957; 95: 364.Google Scholar
58de Virgilio, C, Dubrow, T, Sheppard, BS et al. Fibrin glue inhibits intraabdominal adhesion formation. Arch Surg 1990; 125: 1378–82.Google Scholar
59De laco, PA, Costa, A, Mazzoleni, G, Pasquinelli, G, Bassein, L, Marabini, A. Fibrin sealant in laparoscopic adhesion prevention in the rabbit uterine horn model. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 400–404.Google Scholar
60The Adhesion Study Group. Reduction of postoperative pelvic adhesions with intraperitoneal 32% dextran 70; a randomized prospective clinicaltrial. Fertil Steril 1983; 40: 612–19.Google Scholar
61Larsson, B. Controlled clinical approaches to investigate the prevention of adhesions. In: diZerega, GS, Russell, Malinak L, Diamond, MP, Linsky, CB eds. Treatment of postsurgical adhesions. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1990; 177–92.Google Scholar
62Pagidas, K, Tulandi, T. Effects of Ringer's lactate, Interceed (TC7) and Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane on postsurgical adhesion formation. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 199–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63Fayez, JA, Schneider, PJ. Prevention of pelvic adhesion formation by different modalities of treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 1184–88.Google Scholar
64Harris, ET, Morgan, RF, Rodeheaver, GT. Analysis of the kinetics of peritoneal adhesion formation in the rat and evaluation of potential antiadhesive agents. Surgery 1995; 117: 663–69.Google Scholar
65Shushan, A, Mor-Yosef, S, Avgar, A, Laufer, N. Hyaluronic acid for preventing experimental postoperative intraperitoneal adhesions. J Reprod Med 1994; 39: 398.Google ScholarPubMed
66Goldberg, EP, Burns, JW, Yaacobi, Y. Prevention of postoperative adhesions by precoating tissues with dilute sodium hyaluronate solutions. Gynecologic Surgery & Adhesion Prevention. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1993; 191–204.Google Scholar
67Carver, R, Skinner, K, Burgess, L, Colt, MJ, Burns, JW. Effectiveness of a hyaluronic acid based bioresorbable membrane in an adhesiolysis model. Abstract, 49th Meeting of The American Fertility Society, 10 9–14, 1993, Palais des Congres.Google Scholar
68Arora, M, Jaroudi, KA, Hamilton, CJCM, Dayel, F. Controlled comparison of Interceed and amniotic membrane graft in the prevention of postoperative adhesions in the rabbit uterine horn model. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 55: 179–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69Young, RL, Cota, J, Zund, G, Mason, BA, Wheeler, JM. The use of an amniotic membrane graft to prevent postoperative adhesions. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 624–28.Google Scholar
70Heidrick, GW, Pippitt, CH Jr, Morgan, MA, Thurnau, GR. Efficacy of intraperitoneal sodium carboxymethylcellulose in preventing postoperative adhesion formation. J Reprod Med 39: 575–78.Google Scholar
71Adhesion Barrier Study Group (Interceed.TC-7). Prevention of postsurgical adhesions by Interceed, an absorbable adhesion barrier: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 933–38.Google Scholar
72The Japanese Study Group. Use of Interceed (TC7) absorbable adhesion barrier to reduce postoperative adhesion formation in gynecologic infertility surgery. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 58: 1424–32.Google Scholar
73Li, TC, Cooke, ID. The value of an absorbable adhesion barrier, Interceed, in the prevention of adhesion reformation following microsurgical adhesiolysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 335–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74Haney, AF, Doty, E. Expanded-polytetra-fluoroethylene but not oxidized regenerated cellulose prevents adhesion formation and reformation in a mouse uterine horn model of surgical injury. Fertil Steril 1993; 60: 550–59.Google Scholar
75Haney, AF, Doty, E. Murine peritoneal injury and de novo adhesion formation caused by oxidized-regenerated cellulose (Interceed[TC7]) but not expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane). Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 202–208.Google Scholar
76Haney, AF, Hesla, J, Hurst, BS et al. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane) is superior to oxidized regenerated cellulose (Interceed TC7) in preventing adhesions. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 1021–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77Linsky, CB, Diamond, MP, Cunningham, T, Constatine, B, DeCherney, AH, DiZerega, GS. Adhesion reduction in the rabbit uterine horn model using an absorbable barrier TC-7. J Reprod Med 1987; 32: 17–20.Google ScholarPubMed
78Boyers, SP, Diamond, MP, DeChemey, AH. Reduction of postoperative pelvic adhesions in the rabbit with Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 1066–70.Google Scholar
79Goldberg, JM, Toledo, AA, Mitchell, DE. An evaluation of Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane for the prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 846–49.Google Scholar
80Steinleitner, A, Lambert, H, Kazensky, C, Cantor, B. Poloxamer 407 as an intraperitoneal barrier material for the prevention of postsurgical adhesion formation and reformation in rodent models for reproductive surgery. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 48–52.Google ScholarPubMed
81Leach, RE, Henry, RL. Reduction of postoperative adhesions in the rat uterine horn model with poloxamer 407. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1317–19.Google Scholar
82Montgomery, Rice V, Shanti, A, Moghissi, KS, Leach, RE. A comparative evaluation of Poloxamer 407 and oxidized regenerated cellulose (Interceed [TC7]) to reduce postoperative adhesion formation in the rat uterine horn model. Feritil Steril 1993; 59: 901–906.Google Scholar
83Hill-West, JL, Chowdhury, SM, Sawhney, AS, Pathak, CP, Dunn, RC, Hubbell, JA. Prevention of postoperative adhesions in the rat by in situ photopolymerization of bioresorbable hydrogel barriers. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83: 59–64.Google Scholar
84Bakkum, EA, Trimbos, JB, Dalmeijer, RAJ, Van Blitterswijk, CA. Preventing postoperative intraperitoneal adhesion formation with Polyactive, a degradable copolymer acting as a barrier. J Material Sci Material Med 1995; 6: 41–45.Google Scholar
85Larsson, B, Fianu, S, Jonasson, A, Rodriquez-Martinez, H, Hedström, CG, Thorgirssson, T. The use of Tisseel (Tissucol), – a two-component-fibrin-sealant – in operations for fertility as a sealant and for prevention of adhesions; an experimental study and preliminry clinical evaluation. In: Schlag, G, Redt, H eds. Gynecology & obstetrics – urology fibrin sealant in operations. Med. volume 3. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
86Tulandi, T. Effects of fibrin sealant on tubal anastomosis and adhesion formation. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 136–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Surrey, MW, Freidman, S. Second-look laparoscopy after reconstructive pelvic surgery for infertility. J Reprod Med 1982; 27: 658–60.Google Scholar
88Tulandi, T, Murray, C, Guralnick, M. Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 213–15.Google Scholar
89Trimbos-Kemper, TCM, Trimbos, JB, Van Hall, EV. Adhesion formation after tubal surgery: results of the eight day laparoscopy in 188 patients. Fertil Steril 1985; 43: 395–400.Google Scholar
90Jansen, RPS. Early laparoscopy after pelvic operations to prevent adhesions: safety and efficacy. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 26–31.Google Scholar
91DeCherney, AH, Mezer, HC. The nature of posttuboplasty pelvic adhesions as determined by early and late laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 1984; 4: 643–46.Google Scholar
92Steinleitner, A, Lambert, H, Kazensky, C, Danks, P, Roy, S. Pentoxifylime, a methylxanthine derivative, prevents postsurgical adhesion reformation in rabbits. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 926–28.Google Scholar