Effects of hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose gel on bowel anastomoses in the New Zealand white rabbit

A Hadaegh, J Burns, L Burgess, R Rose, E Rowe, W W LaMorte, J M Becker, A Hadaegh, J Burns, L Burgess, R Rose, E Rowe, W W LaMorte, J M Becker

Abstract

Intra-abdominal adhesions form in more than 90% of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery and can lead to significant complications. Application of a bioresorbable gel consisting of chemically modified hyaluronic acid (HA) and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) has shown promise as a means of preventing intra-abdominal adhesions, but there have been concerns that the presence of the gel might interfere with the integrity and healing of bowel anastomoses. We tested the effects of HA/CMC gel on adhesion formation and anastomotic healing in 60 New Zealand white rabbits after transection and complete (100%) or incomplete (90%) anastomosis of the ileum. Half of the animals underwent application of HA/CMC gel and half served as control subjects. Animals were killed at 4, 7, or 14 days after surgery. Anastomotic adhesions were scored in a blinded fashion. Integrity of the anastomosis was tested by measuring bursting pressure at the anastomotic site and in an adjacent section of intact bowel. With complete anastomosis, HA/CMC gel significantly reduced adhesion formation at 7 and 14 days after surgery (P<0.05), but gel application did not inhibit adhesion formation when the anastomosis was incomplete. Anastomosed segments of bowel burst at a lower pressure than intact bowel 4 days after surgery, but bursting pressures were normal at 7 and 14 days. Burst pressures of anastomoses receiving an application of HA/CMC gel were nearly identical to control anastomoses at all three time points. HA/CMC gel did not interfere with the normal healing process of bowel anastomoses. Furthermore, HA/CMC gel decreased adhesion formation after complete anastomoses, yet it did not affect adhesion formation in the presence of anastomotic disruption.

References

    1. Fertil Steril. 1992 Apr;57(4):921-3
    1. Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Nov;43(2):141-4
    1. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Jun;5(3):322-7
    1. J Reprod Med. 1984 Mar;29(3):143-56
    1. Fertil Steril. 1987 May;47(5):864-6
    1. Physiol Rev. 1978 Jan;58(1):255-315
    1. Eur Surg Res. 1993 Jan-Feb;25(1):38-45
    1. Fertil Steril. 1991 Apr;55(4):700-4
    1. Fertil Steril. 1994 Feb;61(2):219-35
    1. Am J Surg. 1995 Jan;169(1):154-9; discussion 159-60
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Sep;155(3):667-70
    1. Br J Surg. 1995 Jan;82(1):3-5
    1. Arch Surg. 1994 Nov;129(11):1179-83
    1. Am J Surg. 1987 Dec;154(6):643-7
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988 Feb;166(2):154-60
    1. Fertil Steril. 1989 Jun;51(6):933-8
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 May;170(5 Pt 1):1396-403
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Apr;79(4):518-22
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Feb 15;148(4):380-5
    1. Am J Pathol. 1971 Oct;65(1):117-48
    1. Fertil Steril. 1983 Nov;40(5):612-9
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993 Aug;177(2):135-9
    1. Eur J Surg. 1995 May;161(5):315-8
    1. J Anat. 1979 Oct;129(Pt 3):659-64
    1. J Anat. 1973 Sep;115(Pt 3):375-92
    1. J Invest Surg. 1994 Sep-Oct;7(5):431-7
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984 Jul;27(7):462-7
    1. J Am Coll Surg. 1996 Oct;183(4):297-306
    1. Am J Med. 1984 Jul 13;77(1A):102-6

Source: PubMed

3
購読する