A direct comparison of seprafilm, adept, intercoat, and spraygel for adhesion prophylaxis

Abstract

Background: Commercially available agents for adhesion prophylaxis are legion but there is a lack of direct comparisons between them. Here we compare four of the most commonly used adhesion barriers against a control group in a clinically relevant rat model.

Material and methods: Standardized lesions were created in Wistar rats using electrocautery and suturing. Subsequently, the experimental lesions were treated with Seprafilm (n = 30), Adept (n = 30), Intercoat (n = 30), Spraygel (n = 30), or no barrier (n = 30). The resulting adhesions were examined 14 d postoperatively.

Results: The mean area covered by adhesion was 77% in the control group, 46% in animals treated with Seprafilm, 54% in animals treated with Adept, 55% in animals treated with Intercoat, and 68% in animals treated with Spraygel. The adhesion-free incidence was 20% (n = 6) of lesions treated with Seprafilm, 20% (n = 6) of lesions treated with Intercoat, 3% of lesions treated with Spraygel (n = 1), and 0% of lesions treated with Adept or the control group.

Conclusions: There were statistically significant differences between the barriers with regards to the area covered by adhesions and the adhesion-free incidence. In spite of this, a significant adhesion burden remains with all of the tested barriers.