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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |