Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 6;1(1):CD011254.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011254.pub2.

Adhesion prevention agents for gynaecological surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews

Affiliations

Adhesion prevention agents for gynaecological surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews

Akshay Hindocha et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Intraperitoneal adhesions are associated with considerable co-morbidity and have large financial and public health repercussions. They have secondary effects that include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, subfertility and bowel obstruction. In women with adhesions, subsequent surgery is more difficult, often takes longer, and is associated with a higher complication rate (Broek 2013). The significant burden of adhesions has led to the development of several anti-adhesion agents, although there is disagreement as to their relative effectiveness.

Objectives: To summarise evidence derived from Cochrane systematic reviews on the clinical safety and effectiveness of solid agents, gel agents, liquid agents and pharmacological agents, used as adjuvants to prevent formation of adhesions after gynaecological pelvic surgery.

Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched using the keyword 'adhesion' up to August 2014. The Cochrane information management system was also searched for any titles or protocols of reviews in progress. Two review authors independently extracted information from the reviews, with disagreements being resolved by a third review author. The quality of the included reviews was described in a narrative manner, and the AMSTAR tool was used to formally assess each review included in this overview. The quality of evidence provided in the original reviews was described using GRADE methods.

Main results: We included two reviews, one with 18 studies comparing solid agents (oxidised regenerated cellulose expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose, and fibrin sheets) with control or with each other. The other review included 29 studies which compared liquid agents (4% icodextrin, 32% dextran, crystalloids), gel agents (carboxymethylcellulose and polyethylene oxide, polyethylene glycol gels, hyaluronic acid based gel, 0.5% ferric hyaluronate gel, sodium hyaluronate spray) and pharmacological agents (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, reteplase plasminogen activator, N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan, steroid agents, intraperitoneal noxytioline, intraperitoneal heparin, systemic promethazine) with control or each other. Both reviews met all of the criteria of the AMSTAR assessment.The reviews included as outcomes both the primary outcomes of this overview (pelvic pain, pregnancy, live birth rate and quality of life (QoL)) and our secondary outcomes (adverse effects, presence or absence of adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (SLL) and adhesion score). However, neither of the reviews identified any primary studies of solid, gel or pharmacological agents that reported any of our primary outcomes. The only studies in either review that reported any of our primary outcomes were studies comparing liquid agents versus control (saline or Hartmann's solution), which reported pelvic pain (two studies), live birth (two studies) and pregnancy (three studies).An external source of funding was stated for 25 of the 47 studies across both reviews; in 24 of these studies the funding was commercial. Solid agents (18 studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were reported as an outcome by only 9 of the 18 studies. These reported no adverse events. Liquid agents (nine studies)There was no evidence of a difference between liquid agents and control (saline or Hartmann's solution) with respect to pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.14, 1 study, n = 286, moderate quality evidence), pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14, 3 studies, n = 310, moderate quality evidence) or live birth rate (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58, 2 studies, n = 208, moderate quality evidence). No studies of liquid agents reported QoL. Adverse events were not reported as an outcome by any of the nine studies. Gel agents (seven studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were not reported as an outcome by any of the seven studies. Pharmacological agents (seven studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were reported as an outcome by only one of the seven primary studies. This study reported no evidence of difference in ectopic pregnancy rates between intraperitoneal noxytioline and no treatment (OR 4.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 53.27, 1 study, n = 33, low quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to allow us to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of anti-adhesion agents in gynaecological surgery, due to the lack of data on pelvic pain, fertility outcomes, quality of life or safety. A substantial proportion of research in this field has been funded by private companies that manufacture these agents, and further high powered, independent trials will be needed before definitive conclusions can be made.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Overview authors Akshay Hindocha, Sofia Dias, Andrew Watson and Gaity Ahmad are authors of the included Cochrane systematic reviews.

Figures

1
1
Overview flow diagram.

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011254

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to included reviews

Ahmad 2014(a)
    1. Ahmad G, Duffy JMN, Farquhar C, Watson A. Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 11. - PubMed
Ahmad 2014(b)
    1. Ahmad G, Mackie FL, Iles DA, O'Flynn H, Dias S, Metwally M, Watson A. Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858] - DOI - PubMed

Additional references

Adhesion SG 1983
    1. Adhesion Study Group (Buttram V, Malinak R, Cleary R, Cohen S, Cowan B, Daniell J, et al). Reduction of postoperative pelvic adhesions with intraperitoneal 32% dextran 70: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Fertility and Sterility 1983;40:612‐9. - PubMed
Bakkum 1995
    1. Bakkum EA, Trimbos‐Kemper TC. Natural course of postsurgical adhesions. Microsurgery 1995;16(9):650‐4. - PubMed
Bhandari 2004
    1. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro‐industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004;170:477‐80. - PMC - PubMed
Bosteels 2014
    1. Bosteels J, Weyers S, Kasius J, Broekmans FJ, Mol BWJ, D’Hooghe TM. Anti‐adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treating female subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews May 2014, Issue 1. - PubMed
Cheong 2011
    1. Cheong Y, Laird S, Li T, Shelton K, Ledger W, Cooke I. Peritoneal healing and adhesion formation/reformation. Human Reproduction Update 2011;7:556‐66. - PubMed
Cheong 2014
    1. Cheong Y, Reading I, Bailey S, Sadek K, Ledger W, LI T. Should women with chronic pelvic pain have adhesiolysis?. BMC Women's Health 2014;14:36. - PMC - PubMed
De Wilde 2014
    1. Wilde RL. Post market study for an adhesion barrier following laparoscopic myomectomy. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00891657.
Diamond 1996
    1. Diamond MP. Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm membrane (HAL‐F): a blinded, prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. Seprafilm Adhesion Study Group. Fertility and Sterility 1996;66(6):904‐10. - PubMed
Diamond 1998
    1. Diamond MP. Reduction of de novo postsurgical adhesions by intraoperative pre coating with Sepracoat (HAL‐C) solution: a prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo controlled multicenter study. Fertility and Sterility 1998;69(6):1067‐74. - PubMed
Diamond 2001
    1. Diamond M, Freeman M. Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions. Human Reproduction Update 2001;7:567‐76. - PubMed
Diamond 2010
    1. Diamond M, Wexner S, diZereg G, Korell M, Zmora O, Goor H, Kamar M. Adhesion prevention and reduction: Current status and future recommendations of a Multinational Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference. Surgical Innovation 2010;17(3):183‐8. - PubMed
Diamond 2012
    1. Diamond M, Burns E, Accomando B, Mian S, Holmdahl L. Seprafilm® adhesion barrier: a review of the clinical literature on intraabdominal use. Gynecological Surgery 2012;9(3):247‐57. - PMC - PubMed
diZerega 1994
    1. diZerega G. Contemporary adhesion prevention. Fertility and Sterility 1994;61:219‐35. - PubMed
Hammoud 2004
    1. Hammoud A, Gago L, Diamond M. Adhesions in patients with chronic pelvic pain: a role for adhesiolysis?. Fertility and Sterility 2004;82:1483‐91. - PubMed
Haney 1995
    1. Haney A, Hesla J, Hurst B, Kettel M, Murphy A, Rock J, et al. Prevention of pelvic side wall adhesion reformation using surgical barriers: Expanded polytetrafluororethylene (Gore‐Tex surgical membrane) is superior to oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed TC7). Fertility and Sterility 1994;210:265. - PubMed
Hindocha 2014
    1. Hindocha A, Beere L, Dias S, Watson A, Ahmad G. Adhesion prevention agents for gynaecological surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 05/08/2014, Issue 1. - PMC - PubMed
Hosie 2001
    1. Hosie K, Gilbert JA, Kerr D, Brown CB, Peers EM. Fluid dynamics in man of an intraperitoneal drug delivery solution: 4% icodextrin. Drug Delivery 2001;8(1):9‐12. - PubMed
Johns 2001
    1. Johns DB, Keyport GM, Hoehler F, Zerega GS. Reduction of postsurgical adhesion with Intergel adhesion prevention solution: a multicenter study of safety and efficacy after conservative gynaecologic surgery. Fertility and Sterility 2001;76(3):595‐604. - PubMed
Kumar 2009
    1. Kumar S, Wong P, Leaper D. Intra‐peritoneal prophylactic agents for preventing adhesions and adhesive intestinal obstruction after non‐gyneacological abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD005080. - PubMed
Lexchin 2003
    1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167‐70. - PMC - PubMed
Li 1994
    1. Li TC, Cooke ID. The value of an absorbable adhesion barrier, Interceed, in the prevention of adhesion reformation following microsurgical adhesiolysis. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1994;101(4):335‐9. - PubMed
Liakakos 2001
    1. Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine PM, Dervenis C, Young R. Peritoneal adhesions: Etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical significance. Digestive Surgery 2001;18:260‐73. - PubMed
Lower 2000
    1. Lower AM, Hawthorn RJS, Emeritus HE, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;107:855‐62. - PubMed
Lower 2004
    1. Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Clark D, Boyd JH, Finlayson AR, Knight AD, et al. Surgical and Clinical Research (SCAR) Group. Adhesion‐related readmissions following gynaecological laparoscopy or laparotomy in Scotland: an epidemiological study of 24 046 patients. Human Reproduction 2004;19(8):1877‐85. - PubMed
Mais 1995
    1. Mais V, Ajossa S, Marongiu D, Peiretti R, Guerriero S, Melis G. Reduction of adhesion reformation after laparoscopic endometriosis surgery: a randomised trial with an oxidized regenerated cellulose absorbable barrier. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995;86(4, Pt 1):512‐5. - PubMed
Mais 2014
    1. Mais V. Peritoneal adhesions after laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2014;20(17):4917‐25. - PMC - PubMed
Mettler 2004
    1. Mettler L, Audebert A, Lehmann‐Willenbrock E, Schive‐Peterhansi K, Jacobs V. A randomized prospective,controlled, multicenter clinical trial of a sprayable, site specific adhesion barrier system in patients undergoing myomectomy. Fertility and Sterility 2004;82(2):398‐404. - PubMed
Mettler 2008
    1. Mettler L, Hucke J, Bojahr B, Tinneberg HR, LeylandN, Avelar R. A safety and efficacy study of a resorbable hydrogel for reduction of post‐operative adhesions following myomectomy. Human Reproduction 2008;23(5):1093‐100. - PubMed
Pellicno 2003
    1. Pellicno M, Bramamte S, Cirillo D. Effectiveness of auto‐cross linked hyaluronic acid gel after laparoscopic myomectomy in infertile patients: a prospective randomised controlled study. Fertility and Sterility 2003;80:441‐4. - PubMed
Rennie 1997
    1. Rennie D. Thyroid storms. JAMA 1997;277:1238‐43. - PubMed
Robertson 2010
    1. Robertson D, Lefebvre G. Adhesion prevention in gynaecological surgery. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2010;32:598‐608. - PubMed
SRS 2007
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Pathogenesis, consequences and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynaecological surgery. Fertility and Sterility 2007;88:21‐6. - PubMed
Swank 2003
    1. Swank DJ, Swank‐Bordewijk SC, Hop WC, Erp WF, Janssen IM, Bonjer HJ, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomised controlled multi‐centre trial. Lancet 2003;12(361(9365)):1247‐51. - PubMed
Tackeuchi 2005
    1. Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, Kumakri J, Kmoshita K. Adhesion prevention effects of fibrin ceilings after laparoscopic myomectomy as determined by second look laparoscopy: a prospective randomised, controlled study. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2005;50(8):571‐7. - PubMed
ten Broek 2012
    1. Broek R, Kok‐Krant N, Verhoeve HR, Goor H, Bakkum EA. Efficacy of polyethylene glycol adhesion barrier after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery: results of a randomized control pilot study. Gynaecological Surgery 2012;9:29‐35. - PMC - PubMed
ten Broek 2013
    1. Broek R, Issa Y, Santbrink E, Bouvy N, Kruitwagen R, Jekeel J, et al. Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ 2013;347:f5588. - PMC - PubMed
ten Broek 2014
    1. Broek R, Stommel M, Stirk C, Laarhoven C, Keus F, Goor H. Benefits and harms of adhesion barriers for abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet 2014;383(9911):48‐59. - PubMed
Tinelli 2011
    1. Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Guido M, Tsin DA, Hudelist G, Hurs B, et al. Adhesion formation after intracapsular myomectomy with or without adhesion barrier. Fertility and Sterility 2011;95(5):1780–5. - PubMed
Wilson 2002
    1. Wilson MS, Menzies D, Knight AD, Crowe AM. Demonstrating the clinical and cost effectiveness of adhesion reduction strategies. Colorectal Disease 2002;4(5):355‐60. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms