Daniel G Kiefer1, Jolene C Muscat2, Jarrett Santorelli3, Martin R Chavez2, Cande V Ananth4, John C Smulian5, Anthony M Vintzileos2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. Electronic address: Daniel_g.kiefer@lvhn.org. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY; Department of Surgery, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rising cesarean birth rate has drawn attention to risks associated with repeat cesarean birth. Prevention of adhesions with adhesion barriers has been promoted as a way to decrease operative difficulty. However, robust data demonstrating effectiveness of such interventions are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We report data from a multicenter trial designed to evaluate the short-term safety and effectiveness of a modified sodium hyaluronic acid (HA)-carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) absorbable adhesion barrier for reduction of adhesions following cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN:Patients who underwent primary or repeat cesarean delivery were included in this multicenter, single-blinded (patient), randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into either HA-CMC (N = 380) or no treatment (N = 373). No other modifications to their treatment were part of the protocol. Short-term safety data were collected following randomization. The location and density of adhesions (primary outcome) were assessed at their subsequent delivery using a validated tool, which can also be used to derive an adhesion score that ranges from 0-12. RESULTS: No differences in baseline characteristics, postoperative course, or incidence of complications between the groups following randomization were noted. Eighty patients from the HA-CMC group and 92 controls returned for subsequent deliveries. Adhesions in any location were reported in 75.6% of the HA-CMC group and 75.9% of the controls (P = .99). There was no significant difference in the median adhesion score; 2 (range 0-10) for the HA-CMC group vs 2 (range 0-8) for the control group (P = .65). One third of the HA-CMC patients met the definition for severe adhesions (adhesion score >4) compared to 15.5% in the control group (P = .052). There were no significant differences in the time from incision to delivery (P = .56). Uterine dehiscence in the next pregnancy was reported in 2 patients in HA-CMC group vs 1 in the control group (P = .60). CONCLUSION: Although we did not identify any short-term safety concerns, HA-CMC adhesion barrier applied at cesarean delivery did not reduce adhesion formation at the subsequent cesarean delivery.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The rising cesarean birth rate has drawn attention to risks associated with repeat cesarean birth. Prevention of adhesions with adhesion barriers has been promoted as a way to decrease operative difficulty. However, robust data demonstrating effectiveness of such interventions are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We report data from a multicenter trial designed to evaluate the short-term safety and effectiveness of a modified sodium hyaluronic acid (HA)-carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) absorbable adhesion barrier for reduction of adhesions following cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN:Patients who underwent primary or repeat cesarean delivery were included in this multicenter, single-blinded (patient), randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into either HA-CMC (N = 380) or no treatment (N = 373). No other modifications to their treatment were part of the protocol. Short-term safety data were collected following randomization. The location and density of adhesions (primary outcome) were assessed at their subsequent delivery using a validated tool, which can also be used to derive an adhesion score that ranges from 0-12. RESULTS: No differences in baseline characteristics, postoperative course, or incidence of complications between the groups following randomization were noted. Eighty patients from the HA-CMC group and 92 controls returned for subsequent deliveries. Adhesions in any location were reported in 75.6% of the HA-CMC group and 75.9% of the controls (P = .99). There was no significant difference in the median adhesion score; 2 (range 0-10) for the HA-CMC group vs 2 (range 0-8) for the control group (P = .65). One third of the HA-CMCpatients met the definition for severe adhesions (adhesion score >4) compared to 15.5% in the control group (P = .052). There were no significant differences in the time from incision to delivery (P = .56). Uterine dehiscence in the next pregnancy was reported in 2 patients in HA-CMC group vs 1 in the control group (P = .60). CONCLUSION: Although we did not identify any short-term safety concerns, HA-CMC adhesion barrier applied at cesarean delivery did not reduce adhesion formation at the subsequent cesarean delivery.
Authors: Rodney K Edwards; Melissa Ingersoll; Richard D Gerkin; Ana V Bodea-Braescu; Monique G Lin Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Demetrios Moris; Jeffery Chakedis; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Ana Wilson; Mairead Marion Hennessy; Antonios Athanasiou; Eliza W Beal; Chrysoula Argyrou; Evangelos Felekouras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jo C Dumville; Trish A Gray; Catherine J Walter; Catherine A Sharp; Tamara Page; Rhiannon Macefield; Natalie Blencowe; Thomas Kg Milne; Barnaby C Reeves; Jane Blazeby Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-12-20