| Literature DB >> 21349198 |
Qiang-Ye Zhang1, Sheng Ma, Dong Xi, Wen-Tong Zhang, Ai-Wu Li.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adhesions formation is a significant postsurgical complication. At present, there is no effective method for preventing adhesions formation 1, although barrier products such as Dextran (Dex) 2 and sodium hyaluronate (SH) 3 have proved the most clinically successful 456, This study is designed to investigate the preventive and therapeutic potential of a novel penicillamine-bound membrane for abdominal adhesions formation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21349198 PMCID: PMC3053215 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-11-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Figure 1Animal model of abdominal adhesion. Arrow in (A) shows the caecum of normal animals. (B) Shows that the caecum is scratched with dry gauze at 2 cm × 2 cm, which is treated as the sham group. While the arrow in (C) shows that, the scratched caecum is covered with penicillamine-bound membrane.
Comparison of the occurrence of adhesion, adhesion score and breaking strength of incision between control (A) and treated groups (B, C, D).
| Group (s) | Occurrence of adhesion | Adhesion score | Breaking strength of incision(unit: g) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | |
| Control | 100% | 100% | 7.625 ± 2.92 | 9.25 ± 1.91 | 245.1 ± 16.51 | 323.13 ± 43.77 |
| Dextran | 48% | 80% | 2.9 ± 1.19* | 4.625 ± 2.92 | 100.6 ± 20.02* | 190.45 ± 38.33* |
| SH | 56% | 80% | 3.5 ± 1.6* | 5.25 ± 1.91 | 115.0 ± 15.5* | 183.6 ± 20.0* |
| Penicillamine | 40% | 48% | 2.7 ± 3.19* | 2.5 ± 1.82* | 198.0 ± 12.35 | 287.8 ± 11.09 |
(* means p < 0.05, compared to control level)
Adhesion Score (Bigatti's method):
| Characteristic | Adhesion Score |
|---|---|
| Tenacity | |
| None | 0 |
| Adhesions essentially fell apart | 1 |
| Adhesions lysed with traction | 2 |
| Adhesions required sharp dissection | 3 |
| Type | |
| None | 0 |
| Filmy, no vessels (transparent) | 1 |
| Dense, no vessels (translucent) | 2 |
| Dense, vascular, small vessels (diameter 50 μm) | 3 |
| Dense, vascular, large vessels (diameter 50-110 μm) | 4 |
| Extent (% of SILASTIC patch surface covered by adhesions) | |
| 0 | 0 |
| < 25 | 1 |
| 25-50 | 2 |
| 50-75 | 3 |
| > 75 | 4 |
Figure 2Comparison of adhesion formation in different groups by immunochemistry staining. Arrows in (A) and (B) show the stained collagen I. Significantly less collagen I and fibers are found in penicillamine-treated group (B) than in the sham group (A).
Figure 3Comparison of wound healing in different groups by immunochemistry staining. Blood vessels hyperplasia is observed in the sham group (A), while not in the penicillamine-treated group (B).
Figure 4Comparison of adhesion formation in the sham and penicillamine-bound membrane-treated groups. Arrows in (A) and (B) show that abdominal adhesion tissue is found in the sham group, while the adhesion is not found in the penicillamine-bound membrane- treated group(C) and (D). Arrows in (C) and (D) show that the scratched caecum is recovered.
Comparison of occurrence of adhesion, adhesion score and breaking strength of incision between membranes with/without penicillamine- treated groups.
| Group (s) | Occurrence of adhesion | Adhesion score | Breaking strength of incision(unit: g) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | Postsurgical | |
| Penicillamine -bound Membrane | 40% | 40% | 1.7 ± 1.45* | 2.0 ± 1.6* | 228.6 ± 19.97 | 331.7 ± 15.17 |
| Non-Penicillamine -bound Membrane | 80% | 92% | 7.1 ± 1.3 | 8.91 ± 2.32 | 259.4 ± 18.32 | 376.4 ± 23.43 |
(* means p < 0.05, compared to non-penicillamine -bound membrane- treated group)