Int J Med Sci 2019; 16(10):1350-1355. doi:10.7150/ijms.33277
Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField® PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
2. Institute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
* These authors contributed equally
Poehnert D, Neubert L, Klempnauer J, Borchert P, Jonigk D, Winny M. Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField® PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model. Int J Med Sci 2019; 16(10):1350-1355. doi:10.7150/ijms.33277. Available from http://www.medsci.org/v16p1350.htm
Adhesion barriers can be based on numerous substances. In the rat Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model (OPAM) the starch-based hemostats 4DryField and Arista were tested for their capability to act in a preventive manner against adhesion formation (applied as a powder that was mixed in situ with saline solution to form a barrier gel). Adhesions were scored using the established scoring systems by Lauder and Hoffmann, as well as histopathologically using the score by Zühlke. Animals receiving saline solution were used as controls. As previously published, 4DryField reduced peritoneal adhesions significantly. However, Arista did not lead to a statistically significant reduction of adhesion formation. When comparing 4DryField and Arista applied in the same manner, only 4DryField was significantly effective in preventing peritoneal adhesions. Histopathological evaluations confirmed the results of the macroscopic investigation, leading to the conclusion that starch-based hemostats do not generally have the capability to function as effective adhesion prevention devices.
Keywords: Adhesion prevention, abdominal surgery, rat model OPAM, 4DryField® PH, AristaTM AH