Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johns, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johns, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction Update, Vol.7, No.6 pp.577-579, 2001
© European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2001; all rights reserved

Evidence-based prevention of post-operative adhesions

Alan Johns1

1 3700 Rufe Snow Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76180, USA

To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Alan Johns, 3700 Rufe Snow Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76180, USA. e-mail: DAJ{at}womenssurgerygroup.com

Abstract

Despite decades of research, numerous new product ideas and ‘carefully considered opinions’ of recognized experts, very few products for the prevention of post-operative adhesions have met the requirements for Level 1 evidence of safety and efficacy. Those that have are useable only at laparotomy. Several new liquid products intended for use at laparoscopy are in various stages of development and clinical investigation. Hopefully, some will prove to be both simple to use and efficacious. Even if this occurs, it must be remembered that a reduction in post-operative adhesions does not necessarily produce a better clinical outcome. Our common sense suggests that fewer adhesions should logically result in less pain, more pregnancies, fewer bowel obstructions and less long-term morbidity. We believe that ‘fewer adhesions’ is a good thing, but we have no controlled human trials to prove this. How much of a reduction in post-operative adhesions is necessary before it is clinically relevant? A single adhesion in the wrong anatomic location may be catastrophic. How do we measure this? Until these and other questions have been answered (if ever), we have nothing more than educated guesses that all these efforts are warranted.

Key words: adhesion barriers / anti-adhesion liquids / evidence-based prevention / post-operative adhesions / surgical technique


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
C. Nappi, A. Di Spiezio Sardo, E. Greco, M. Guida, S. Bettocchi, and G. Bifulco
Prevention of adhesions in gynaecological endoscopy
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2007; 13(4): 379 - 394.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M.J. Mingione, J.J. Scibetta, S.R. Sanko, and W.R. Phipps
Clinical outcomes following interval laparoscopic transadominal cervico-isthmic cerclage placement: Case series
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2003; 18(8): 1716 - 1719.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.