open access

Vol 90, No 9 (2019)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2019-09-30
Get Citation

A comparison in an experimental rat model of the effects on adhesion formation of different hemostatic methods used in abdominopelvic surgery

Erkan Mavigök, Murat Bakacak, Fatih Mehmet Yazar, Zeyneb Bakacak, Aslı Yaylalı, Ömer Faruk Boran, Abdulkadir Yasir Bahar
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2019.0088
·
Pubmed: 31588547
·
Ginekol Pol 2019;90(9):507-512.

open access

Vol 90, No 9 (2019)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2019-09-30

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different hemostasis methods used in abdominal surgery on the development of abdominal adhesion. 

Material and methods: A total of 48 Wistar albino female rats were separated into six groups; Group 1 — Control group, Group 2 — Hemorrhage group, Group 3 — Electrocoautery group, Group 4 — Gel Spon-P®, Group 5 — PAHACEL®, and Group 6 — Ankaferd-Blood Stopper®. Adhesions that developed were scored according to the Knightly classification and the prevalence of adhesions according to the Linsky classification. The total adhesion score was calculated as the total of the severity and prevalence scores. 

Results: The lowest total adhesion values were determined in Group 1 (control) and the highest adhesion values were in Group 2 (hemorrhage) group in terms of all parameters. The adhesion values in Group 3, where the rats were administered hemostasis with electrocautery were similar to those of Group 2 (hemorrhage). When the alternative methods were evaluated, the lowest adhesion scores were in Group 6 (Ankaferd-Blood Stopper®). 

Conclusions: In cases of minor pelvic or abdominal bleeding, not providing hemostasis or applying hemostasis with electrocautery can increase the development of intra-abdominal adhesions. The use of alternative hemostatic materials instead of electrocautery for hemostasis may reduce the formation of adhesions.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different hemostasis methods used in abdominal surgery on the development of abdominal adhesion. 

Material and methods: A total of 48 Wistar albino female rats were separated into six groups; Group 1 — Control group, Group 2 — Hemorrhage group, Group 3 — Electrocoautery group, Group 4 — Gel Spon-P®, Group 5 — PAHACEL®, and Group 6 — Ankaferd-Blood Stopper®. Adhesions that developed were scored according to the Knightly classification and the prevalence of adhesions according to the Linsky classification. The total adhesion score was calculated as the total of the severity and prevalence scores. 

Results: The lowest total adhesion values were determined in Group 1 (control) and the highest adhesion values were in Group 2 (hemorrhage) group in terms of all parameters. The adhesion values in Group 3, where the rats were administered hemostasis with electrocautery were similar to those of Group 2 (hemorrhage). When the alternative methods were evaluated, the lowest adhesion scores were in Group 6 (Ankaferd-Blood Stopper®). 

Conclusions: In cases of minor pelvic or abdominal bleeding, not providing hemostasis or applying hemostasis with electrocautery can increase the development of intra-abdominal adhesions. The use of alternative hemostatic materials instead of electrocautery for hemostasis may reduce the formation of adhesions.

Get Citation

Keywords

intra-abdominal hemorrhage; abdominal adhesion; hemostatic agents; pelvic surgery; hemostasis

About this article
Title

A comparison in an experimental rat model of the effects on adhesion formation of different hemostatic methods used in abdominopelvic surgery

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 90, No 9 (2019)

Pages

507-512

Published online

2019-09-30

DOI

10.5603/GP.2019.0088

Pubmed

31588547

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2019;90(9):507-512.

Keywords

intra-abdominal hemorrhage
abdominal adhesion
hemostatic agents
pelvic surgery
hemostasis

Authors

Erkan Mavigök
Murat Bakacak
Fatih Mehmet Yazar
Zeyneb Bakacak
Aslı Yaylalı
Ömer Faruk Boran
Abdulkadir Yasir Bahar

References (23)
  1. Boland GM, Weigel RJ. Formation and prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions. J Surg Res. 2006; 132(1): 3–12.
  2. Arung W, Meurisse M, Detry O. Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol. 2011; 17(41): 4545–4553.
  3. Ward BC, Panitch A. Abdominal adhesions: current and novel therapies. J Surg Res. 2011; 165(1): 91–111.
  4. Kamel RM. Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010; 150(2): 111–118.
  5. Karaca G, Aydin O, Pehlivanli F, et al. Effect of ankaferd blood stopper in experimental peritoneal adhesion model. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2016; 90(4): 213–217.
  6. ten Broek RPG, Wilbers J, van Goor H. Electrocautery causes more ischemic peritoneal tissue damage than ultrasonic dissection. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25(6): 1827–1834.
  7. Pellicano M, Bramante S, Guida M, et al. Ovarian endometrioma: postoperative adhesions following bipolar coagulation and suture. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89(4): 796–799.
  8. Wallwiener CW, Kraemer B, Wallwiener M, et al. The extent of adhesion induction through electrocoagulation and suturing in an experimental rat study. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93(4): 1040–1044.
  9. Cömert M, Karakaya K, Barut F, et al. Does intraabdominal use of Ankaferd Blood Stopper cause increased intraperitoneal adhesions? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2010; 16(5): 383–389.
  10. Tuncal SD, Kismet K, Kilicoglu B, et al. Evaluation of intraabdominal adhesion generating potentials of ankaferd and calcium alginate used as hemostatic agents. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2014; 115(9): 544–549.
  11. Akarsu C, Kalaycı MU, Yavuz E, et al. [Comparison of the hemostatic efficiency of Ankaferd Blood Stopper and fibrin glue on a liver laceration model in rats]. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2011; 17(4): 308–312.
  12. Barbolt TA, Odin M, Léger M, et al. Pre-clinical subdural tissue reaction and absorption study of absorbable hemostatic devices. Neurol Res. 2001; 23(5): 537–542.
  13. KNIGHTLY JJ, AGOSTINO D, CLIFFTON EE. The effect of fibrinolysin and heparin on the formation of peritoneal adhesions. Surgery. 1962; 52: 250–258.
  14. Linsky CB, Diamond MP, Cunningham T, et al. Adhesion reduction in the rabbit uterine horn model using an absorbable barrier, TC-7. J Reprod Med. 1987; 32(1): 17–20.
  15. Zühlke HV, Lorenz EM, Straub EM, et al. [Pathophysiology and classification of adhesions]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir. 1990: 1009–1016.
  16. Holmdahl L, al-Jabreen M, Risberg B. Experimental models for quantitative studies on adhesion formation in rats and rabbits. Eur Surg Res. 1994; 26(4): 248–256.
  17. Turhan N, Kurt M, Shorbagi A, et al. Topical Ankaferd Blood Stopper administration to bleeding gastrointestinal carcinomas decreases tumor vascularization. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104(11): 2874–2877.
  18. Tasdelen Fisgin N, Tanriverdi Cayci Y, Coban AY, et al. Antimicrobial activity of plant extract Ankaferd Blood Stopper. Fitoterapia. 2009; 80(1): 48–50.
  19. Işler SC, Demircan S, Cakarer S, et al. Effects of folk medicinal plant extract Ankaferd Blood Stopper on early bone healing. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18(4): 409–414.
  20. Tomizawa Y. Clinical benefits and risk analysis of topical hemostats: a review. J Artif Organs. 2005; 8(3): 137–142.
  21. Johnson WS, Blanton EE. An evaluation of 9-aminoacridine/Gelfoam to reduce dry socket formation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988; 66(2): 167–170.
  22. Güney G, Kaya C, Oto G, et al. Effects of quercetin and surgicel for preventing adhesions after gynecological surgery: A rat uterine horn model. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017; 43(1): 179–184.
  23. Ates U, Ata B, Ortakuz S, et al. Prevention of adhesion formation following ovarian surgery in a standardized animal model: comparative study of Interceed and double layer Surgicell. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008; 34(1): 12–17.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl