Literature DB >> 15868496

Comparison of cecal abrasion and multiple-abrasion models in generating intra-abdominal adhesions for animal studies.

M Oncel1, F H Remzi, J Connor, V W Fazio.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The formation of postoperative adhesions is a common problem in abdominal surgery that may lead to serious complications. Appropriate animal adhesion models are essential for the investigation of adhesiogenesis and the development of new anti-adhesive products. Although animal models have been developed to study the process of adhesion formation in the abdomen, they are not effective in generating adhesions located over small bowel where adhesions are most commonly observed in clinical practice.
METHODS: Twenty-nine Sprague Dawley rats were subjected to standardized cecal abrasion (group 1; n=9), or two types of multiple abrasion, in which cecal and 3 or 5 abrasions were performed on small bowel (group 2, n=10; and group 3, n=10). An observer blinded to the randomization assessed the difficulty of adhesiolysis on a 6-point scale, and the locations of the adhesions were recorded 21 days after the initial surgery.
RESULTS: Adhesiolysis was significantly more difficult in group 3 than in group 1 (p=0.01). The number of animals that had adhesions between the small bowel segments and the total number of locations where small bowel adhered were significantly greater in group 2 and 3 than in group 1 (p<0.05 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: Abrasions to the small bowel created consistent adhesions that have clinical characteristics of intra-abdominal adhesions as compared to the standard cecal abrasion model and that can be used in future animal studies on adhesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15868496     DOI: 10.1007/s10151-005-0189-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tech Coloproctol        ISSN: 1123-6337            Impact factor:   3.781


  6 in total

1.  Combination of Sterile Injury and Microbial Contamination to Model Post-surgical Peritoneal Adhesions in Mice.

Authors:  Julia Bayer; Deborah Stroka; Paul Kubes; Daniel Candinas; Joel Zindel
Journal:  Bio Protoc       Date:  2022-08-20

2.  All the commercially available adhesion barriers have the same effect on adhesion prophylaxis?; A comparison of barrier agents using a newly developed, severe intra-abdominal adhesion model.

Authors:  Hyo Jun Hwang; Min Sung An; Tae Kwun Ha; Kwang Hee Kim; Tae Hyeon Kim; Chang Soo Choi; Kwan Hee Hong; Soo Jin Jung; Sun-Hee Kim; Kuk Hwan Rho; Ki Beom Bae
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  New hepatectomy-induced postoperative adhesion model in rats, and evaluation of the efficacy of anti-adhesion materials.

Authors:  Atsushi Shimizu; Takashi Suhara; Taichi Ito; Kiyohiko Omichi; Katsutoshi Naruse; Kiyoshi Hasegawa; Norihiro Kokudo
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-03-16       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  Comparison of peritoneal adhesion formation in bowel retraction by cotton towels versus the silicone lap pak device in a rabbit model.

Authors:  Brian G Liu; Dawn S Ruben; Wolfgang Renz; Antonio Santillan; Steven J Kubisen; John W Harmon
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2011-11-07

5.  High reproducibility of adhesion formation in rat with meso-stitch approximation of injured cecum and abdominal wall.

Authors:  Daniel Poehnert; Mahmoud Abbas; Hans-Heinrich Kreipe; Juergen Klempnauer; Markus Winny
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  Evaluation of the xenobiotic reaction against hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane in the abdominal cavity.

Authors:  Masaaki Nagata; Namiko Hoshi; Hayato Yoshinaka; Hideyuki Shiomi; Mamoru Takenaka; Atsuhiro Masuda; Yumi Maruyama; Ray Uchida; Takeshi Azuma; Hiromu Kutsumi
Journal:  Prog Biomater       Date:  2016-07-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.