BACKGROUND: Seprafilm did not decrease small bowel obstruction (SBO), but significantly decreased reoperation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, the preventive effect in colon cancer remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients with colon cancer. The study group comprised 345 patients with colon cancer. In the seprafilm group (n = 166), two sheets of seprafilm were inserted under a midline incision. Patients who were admitted and required decompression were considered to have SBO. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 61.9 months. Patient characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in the incidence of SBO between the seprafilm group (7.8%) and the control group (10.6%) (P = .46). In patients who underwent reoperation, SBO occurred in a midline incision in one patient and at other sites in four patients in the seprafilm group as compared with two patients and five patients, respectively, in the control group. Multivariate analysis showed that only a history of laparotomy was an independent risk factor for SBO. CONCLUSIONS: Seprafilm did not decrease SBO or reoperation in colon cancer. The incidence of SBO caused by adhesion to the midline incision was relatively low as compared with that caused by adhesion to other sites.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Seprafilm did not decrease small bowel obstruction (SBO), but significantly decreased reoperation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, the preventive effect in colon cancer remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients with colon cancer. The study group comprised 345 patients with colon cancer. In the seprafilm group (n = 166), two sheets of seprafilm were inserted under a midline incision. Patients who were admitted and required decompression were considered to have SBO. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 61.9 months. Patient characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in the incidence of SBO between the seprafilm group (7.8%) and the control group (10.6%) (P = .46). In patients who underwent reoperation, SBO occurred in a midline incision in one patient and at other sites in four patients in the seprafilm group as compared with two patients and five patients, respectively, in the control group. Multivariate analysis showed that only a history of laparotomy was an independent risk factor for SBO. CONCLUSIONS:Seprafilm did not decrease SBO or reoperation in colon cancer. The incidence of SBO caused by adhesion to the midline incision was relatively low as compared with that caused by adhesion to other sites.
Authors: Samuel P Carmichael; Jaewook Shin; John W Vaughan; Prafulla K Chandra; John B Holcomb; Anthony J Atala Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 2.417
Authors: S Kapoulas; A Papalois; G Papadakis; G Tsoulfas; E Christoforidis; B Papaziogas; D Schizas; G Chatzimavroudis Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 4.739