Adhesion prevention after endometriosis surgery - results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial with second-look laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: Adhesion formation after endometriosis surgery is a severe problem affecting up to 90% of patients. Possible complications include chronic pain, ileus, and secondary infertility. Therefore, effective adhesion prophylaxis is desirable, for which the adhesion barrier 4DryField® PH is evaluated in the present clinical study. It is a starch-based powder that forms a gel after irrigation with saline solution and thus separates surgical sites as physical barrier for adhesion prevention. METHODS: Fifty patients with extensive and deep infiltrating endometriosis were included in this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial with two-staged laparoscopic approach. The patients were randomized into two groups, one receiving 4DryField® PH and the other irrigation with saline solution for adhesion prevention. Adhesion formation was directly scored during second-look interventions considering incidence, extent, and severity. Adhesion prevention treatment in the second surgery was performed corresponding to the first intervention to evaluate the long-term outcome in the later course. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with respect to relevant patient parameters. Severity and extent of adhesions were significantly reduced by 85% in the 4DryField® PH group compared to the control group (mean total adhesion score 2.2 vs. 14.2; p = 0.004). Incidence of adhesion formation based on the number of affected sites was significantly reduced by 53% in the intervention vs. control group (mean 1.1 vs. 2.3 sites; p = 0.004). Follow-up of secondary endpoints is not yet completed; results will become available at a later stage. CONCLUSION: Adhesion formation could be reduced significantly by 85% by application of the adhesion barrier 4DryField® PH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration main ID: DRKS00014720, secondary ID: U1111-1213-4142; date of registration 09th May 2018.

Effect of 4DryField® PH on blood loss in hip bipolar hemiarthroplasty following intracapsular femoral neck fracture - a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: One of the most common complications of hip arthroplasty is excessive blood loss that could necessitate allogenic blood transfusion, which is further associated with other complications, such as infections, transfusion reactions or immunomodulation. In gynecology, 4DryField®PH, an absorbable polysaccharide-based formulation, is used for hemostasis and adhesion prophylaxis. In this study, we evaluated its hemostatic effect in patients undergoing hip bipolar hemiarthroplasty following intracapsular femoral neck fracture. METHODS: We studied 40 patients with intracapsular femoral neck fractures (Garden III or IV) admitted at our institution between July 2016 and November 2017. We included patients above 60 years with simple fracture and without pathologic fractures. Patients were randomized into intervention and control groups. The intervention group received 5 g of 4DryField® PH (subfascially and subcutaneously) during wound closure. Three drainages were inserted in a standardized manner (submuscular, subfascial, and subcutaneous) and drainage volume was measured immediately before extraction. Total blood loss was calculated using Mercuriali's formula and standard hemograms upon admission and five days after surgery. Volume of postoperative hematoma was measured using point-of-care ultrasound seven days after surgery. RESULTS: Volume of the postoperative hematoma was reduced by 43.0 mL. However, significant reduction of total blood loss and drainage volume was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that 4DryField® PH had a local hemostatic effect, thereby reducing volume of the postoperative hematoma. However, this reduction was small and had no effect on the total blood loss. Further studies are warranted to improve the application algorithm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS, DRKS00017452 , Registered 11 June 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

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 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.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Peritoneal Adhesion Prevention Devices in a Rat Model.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal operations are followed by adhesions, a prevalent cause of abdominal pain, and the most frequent cause for bowel obstruction and secondary female infertility. This rat study addresses adhesion prevention capability of Adept(®), Interceed(®), Seprafilm(®), and a novel device, 4DryField(®) PH which is provided as powder and generates its effect as gel. METHODS: Sixty-eight male Lewis rats had cecal abrasion and creation of an equally sized abdominal wall defect, and were grouped randomly: A control group without treatment (n=10); two groups treated with 4DryField(®) PH using premixed gel (n=15) or in-situ gel technique (n=16); one group each was treated with Seprafilm(®) (n=8), Interceed(®) (n=9), or Adept(®) (n=10). Sacrifice was on day 7 to evaluate incidence, quality, and quantity of adhesions, as expressed via adhesion reduction rate (AR). Histologic specimens were evaluated. Statistical analyses used ANOVA and unpaired t-tests. RESULTS: 4DryField(®) PH significantly reduced incidence and severity of adhesions both as premixed gel (AR: 85.2%) and as in-situ made gel (AR: 100%), a comparison between these two application techniques showed no differences in efficacy. Seprafilm(®) did not reduce incidence but severity of adhesions significantly (AR: 53.5%). With Interceed(®) (AR: 3.7%) and Adept(®) (AR: 16.1%) no significant adhesion-reduction was achieved. Except for inflammatory response with Interceed(®), histopathology showed good tissue compatibility of all other devices. CONCLUSION: 4DryField(®) PH and Seprafilm(®) showed significant adhesion prevention capabilities. 4DryField(®) PH achieved the highest adhesion prevention effectiveness without restrictions concerning mode of application and compatibility and, thus, is a promising strategy to prevent abdominal adhesions.

Adhesion Prevention Efficacy of Composite Meshes Parietex®, Proceed® and 4DryField® PH Covered Polypropylene Meshes in an IPOM Rat Model.

Background: Adhesions to intraperitoneally implanted meshes (IPOM) are a common problem following hernia surgery and may cause severe complications. Recently, we showed that missing peritoneal coverage of the intestine is a decisive factor for adhesion formation and 4DryField® PH (4DF) gel significantly prevents intestine-to-mesh adhesions even with use of uncoated Ultrapro® polypropylene mesh (UPM). The present study investigates adhesion prevention capability of coated Parietex® mesh (PTM) and Proceed® mesh (PCM) in comparison to 4DF treated UPM. Methods: 20 rats were randomized into two groups. A 1.5 x 2 cm patch of PTM or PCM was attached to the abdominal wall and the cecum was depleted from peritoneum by abrasion. After seven days incidence of intestine-to-mesh adhesions was evaluated using Lauder and Hoffmann adhesion scores. Histological specimens were evaluated; statistics were performed using student's t-test. The data were compared with recently published data of 4DF treated uncoated UPM. Results: Use of PTM or PCM did not significantly diminish development of intestine-to-mesh adhesions (adhesion reduction rate PTM: 29%, p = 0.069 and PCM: 25%, p = 0.078). Histological results confirmed macroscopic finding of agglutination of intestine and abdominal wall with the mesh in between. Compared to these data, the use of UPM combined with 4DF gel reveals significantly better adhesion prevention capability (p < 0.0001) as shown in earlier studies. However, in clinical situation interindividual differences in adhesion induction mechanisms cannot be excluded by this experimental approach as healing responses towards the different materials might vary. Conclusion: This study shows that in case of impaired intestinal peritoneum coated PTM and PCM do not provide significant adhesion prevention. In contrast, use of UPM combined with 4DF gel achieved a significant reduction of adhesions. Hence, in case of injury of the visceral peritoneum, application of a polysaccharide barrier device such as 4DF gel might be considered more effective in reducing intestine-to-mesh adhesions than coated mesh devices.

Treatment of de-peritonealized intestine with 4DryField® PH prevents adhesions between non-resorbable intra-peritoneal hernia mesh and bowel.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal onlay meshes (IPOM) can be associated with intestine-to-mesh adhesion formation, implementing risks like pain, enterocutaneous fistula, infection, and female infertility. This study investigates, whether a treatment of impaired intestinum with the anti-adhesive and hemostyptic agent 4DryField® PH prevents adhesion formation. METHODS: In 20 male LEWIS rats uncoated polypropylene meshes were sewn to the inner abdominal wall and the cecum of the respective animal was de-peritonealized by peritoneal abrasion by a gauze swap, and meso-sutures ensured a constant contact of injured areas. Rats were treated with 4DryField® PH gel either premixed or applied as a powder with in-situ transformation (100 mg powder plus 0.4 ml 0.9% saline solution). One week postoperatively, the extent of intestine-to-mesh adhesions and the quality of mesh ingrowth were evaluated macroscopically by two independent investigators using two scoring systems. Furthermore, specimens were analysed microscopically. All data were compared with control animals without 4DryField® PH treatment and analysed statistically using student's t-test. RESULTS: Treatment of de-peritonealised cecum with 4DryField® PH significantly reduced intestine-to-mesh adhesions in both treatment groups as compared to controls without 4DryField® PH treatment (68% reduction with premixed gel, P<0.0001; 80% reduction with in-situ gel, P<0.0001). There was no impact on the quality of mesh ingrowth, confirmed histologically by a single-layer mesothelial coverage. CONCLUSION: These experiments mimick clinical IPOM implantation scenarios with adjacent bowel depleted from peritoneum. 4DryField® PH gel treatment resulted in intestinal mesothelial surface recovering without development of bowel-to-mesh adhesions. Concurrently, integration of mesh into the abdominal wall is undisturbed by 4DryField® PH treatment.

Evaluation of the biological tolerability of the starch-based medical device 4DryField® PH in vitro and in vivo a rat model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in vitro cytotoxicity/biocompatibility as well as in vivo tolerability of the novel polysaccharide 4DryField® PH, certified for haemostasis and adhesion prevention. METHODS: In vitro cytotoxicity/viability testing according to ISO EN 10,993 using murine and human tumour cell lines incubated with 4DryField® PH (PlantTec Medical GmbH). Using a rat model the impact of 4DryField® PH on animals viability and in vivo effects were macro- and micropathologically assessed. RESULTS: In vitro testing revealed no cytotoxic effect of 4DryField® PH nor enhancement of viability to tumour cell lines. In vivo viability of rats was unimpaired by 4DryField® PH. Bodyweight loss in animals with abdominal injury plus treatment with 4DryField® PH was in the range of controls and less than in injured rats without treatment. At day 7 after surgery no formation of adhesions, neither macroscopic nor histological remnants nor signs of foreign body reaction were present in animals without injury. In animals with peritoneal injury and 4DryField® PH application, histopathological observation revealed minor residuals of polysaccharide in the depth of wound cavity embedded in a thickened subperitoneal layer; however, with a suggested intact neoperitoneum. The presence of mononuclear cells surrounding polysaccharide particles in varying states of degradation was observable as well. CONCLUSION: 4DryField® PH is not cytotoxic and does not enhance viability of tumour cell lines. High dose of 4DryField® PH of 1.09 g/kg bodyweight is well tolerated and reduces weight loss in animals with peritoneal injury. The biocompatibility of 4DryField® PH can be rated as being excellent.