Cargando…

Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model

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 sali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Poehnert, Daniel, Neubert, Lavinia, Klempnauer, Juergen, Borchert, Paul, Jonigk, Danny, Winny, Markus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ivyspring International Publisher 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31692813
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijms.33277
_version_ 1783463576792465408
author Poehnert, Daniel
Neubert, Lavinia
Klempnauer, Juergen
Borchert, Paul
Jonigk, Danny
Winny, Markus
author_facet Poehnert, Daniel
Neubert, Lavinia
Klempnauer, Juergen
Borchert, Paul
Jonigk, Danny
Winny, Markus
author_sort Poehnert, Daniel
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6818195
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Ivyspring International Publisher
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68181952019-11-05 Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model Poehnert, Daniel Neubert, Lavinia Klempnauer, Juergen Borchert, Paul Jonigk, Danny Winny, Markus Int J Med Sci Research Paper 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. Ivyspring International Publisher 2019-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6818195/ /pubmed/31692813 http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijms.33277 Text en © The author(s) This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Poehnert, Daniel
Neubert, Lavinia
Klempnauer, Juergen
Borchert, Paul
Jonigk, Danny
Winny, Markus
Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
title Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
title_full Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
title_fullStr Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
title_short Comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4DryField(®) PH and Arista™ AH in the Optimized Peritoneal Adhesion Model
title_sort comparison of adhesion prevention capabilities of the modified starch powder-based medical devices 4dryfield(®) ph and arista™ ah in the optimized peritoneal adhesion model
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31692813
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijms.33277
work_keys_str_mv AT poehnertdaniel comparisonofadhesionpreventioncapabilitiesofthemodifiedstarchpowderbasedmedicaldevices4dryfieldphandaristaahintheoptimizedperitonealadhesionmodel
AT neubertlavinia comparisonofadhesionpreventioncapabilitiesofthemodifiedstarchpowderbasedmedicaldevices4dryfieldphandaristaahintheoptimizedperitonealadhesionmodel
AT klempnauerjuergen comparisonofadhesionpreventioncapabilitiesofthemodifiedstarchpowderbasedmedicaldevices4dryfieldphandaristaahintheoptimizedperitonealadhesionmodel
AT borchertpaul comparisonofadhesionpreventioncapabilitiesofthemodifiedstarchpowderbasedmedicaldevices4dryfieldphandaristaahintheoptimizedperitonealadhesionmodel
AT jonigkdanny comparisonofadhesionpreventioncapabilitiesofthemodifiedstarchpowderbasedmedicaldevices4dryfieldphandaristaahintheoptimizedperitonealadhesionmodel
AT winnymarkus comparisonofadhesionpreventioncapabilitiesofthemodifiedstarchpowderbasedmedicaldevices4dryfieldphandaristaahintheoptimizedperitonealadhesionmodel