Randomized Controlled Trial of Hyalobarrier® Versus No Hyalobarrier® on the Ovulatory Status of Women with Periovarian Adhesions: A Pilot Study

Clinical Outcomes after the Use of Antiadhesive Agents in Laparoscopic Reproductive Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Intra-abdominal adhesions are abnormal fibrous attachments between tissues and organs that can be congenital or acquired. Adhesion formation is a critical postoperative complication that may lead to bowel obstruction, chronic abdominal pain, and infertility. Physical barrier agents separate opposing peritoneal surfaces in the critical 5-day period of remesotheliazation. These agents are subdivided into solid or liquid/gel. Liquid agents seem easier to use in laparoscopic procedures than solid agents.

METHODS

The search for suitable articles published in English was carried out using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register), Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science, and search register (ClinicalTrial.gov). Only studies reporting data about the impact of the use of an antiadhesive agent on adhesion formation after a primary gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were considered eligible.

RESULTS

Twenty-two papers that met the inclusion criteria were included in this systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should consider applying antiadhesive agents after gynecologic surgery to help reduce adhesion formation and its adverse effects. However, further studies are still needed to confirm their impact on reproductive outcome and to implement clear guidelines on their per-operative application.

Hyaluronic acid gel application versus ovarian suspension for prevention of ovarian adhesions during laparoscopic surgery on endometrioma: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Background

This study aimed to compare the effect of ovarian suspension and hyaluronic acid gel to prevent re-adhesions after laparoscopic endometrioma surgery.

Methods

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Rasoul-e-Akram and Pars Hospitals, Tehran, Iran, 2016-18. Fifty patients with bilateral endometrioma and pelvic adhesions, the candidates of laparoscopic surgery, were included. In each patient, at the end of ovarian cystectomy and adhesiolysis, one of the ovaries was randomly sutured to the abdominal wall, and the HYAcorp Endogel covered the other; the adhesion rate was compared between the groups by ultrasonography, three-month after surgery.

Results

Mean age of patients was 32.6 years. Presurgical variables were similar between right and left ovaries and the study groups (P > 0.05). Postsurgical ultrasonography showed that ovarian soft markers, including < 1/3 ovarian adhesions (minimal adhesions) in 80.5% of ovaries of the Endogel group and 35.5% of the ovarian suspension group (P < 0.001) with higher ovarian mobility in the Endogel group (65% vs. 22%) (P = 0.001). In addition, site-specific tenderness and ovarian fading margin were lower in the Endogel group (P < 0.001).

Trial registration Clinical trial registry number: IRCT2015081723666N1, 12.19.2015, Date of registration: 01/02/2016; https://en.irct.ir/trial/20174?revision=20174. Date and number of IRB: 2015, I.R.IUMS.REC.1394.24703.

Conclusion

Hyaluronic acid gel can be more effective than ovarian suspension in preventing ovarian adhesions after laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis.

Advancement of Biomaterial-Based Postoperative Adhesion Barriers

Postoperative peritoneal adhesion (PPA) is a prevalent incidence that generally happens during the healing process of traumatized tissues. It causes multiple severe complications such as intestinal obstruction, chronic abdominal pain, and female infertility. To prevent PPA, several antiadhesion materials and drug delivery systems composed of biomaterials are used clinically, and clinical antiadhesive is one of the important applications nowadays. In addition to several commercially available materials, like film, spray, injectable hydrogel, powder, or solution type have been energetically studied based on natural and synthetic biomaterials such as alginate, hyaluronan, cellulose, starch, chondroitin sulfate, polyethylene glycol, polylactic acid, etc. Moreover, many kinds of animal adhesion models, such as cecum abrasion models and unitary horn models, are developed to evaluate new materials' efficacy. A new animal adhesion model based on hepatectomy and conventional animal adhesion models is recently developed and a new adhesion barrier by this new model is also developed. In summary, many kinds of materials and animal models are studied; thus, it is quite important to overview this field's current progress. Here, PPA is reviewed in terms of the species of biomaterials and animal models and several problems to be solved to develop better antiadhesion materials in the future are discussed.

Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery

BACKGROUND

Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.

Battling adhesions: from understanding to prevention

Adhesions represent a major burden in clinical practice, particularly following abdominal, intrauterine, pericardial and tendon surgical procedures. Adhesions are initiated by a disruption in the epithelial or mesothelial layer of tissue, which leads to fibrin adhesion sites due to the downregulation of fibrinolytic activity and an increase in fibrin deposition. Hence, the metabolic events involved in tissue healing, coagulation, inflammation, fibrinolysis and angiogenesis play a pivotal role in adhesion formation. Understanding these events, their interactions and their influence on the development of post-surgical adhesion is crucial for the development of effective therapies to prevent them. Mechanical barriers, antiadhesive agents and combination thereof are customarily used in the battle against adhesions. Although these systems seem to be effective at reducing adhesions in clinical procedures, their prevention remains still elusive, imposing the need for new antiadhesive strategies.

Anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility

BACKGROUND

Observational evidence suggests a potential benefit with several anti-adhesion therapies in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) for decreasing intrauterine adhesions (IUAs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy, following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to June 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field. We also searched reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second-look hysteroscopy, along with mean adhesion scores and severity of IUAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of evidence using the GRADE method.

MAIN RESULTS

The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel, indirectness and imprecision. We identified 16 RCTs comparing a device versus no treatment (two studies; 90 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 136 women), device combined with hormonal treatment versus no treatment (one study; 20 women), barrier gel versus no treatment (five studies; 464 women), device with graft versus device without graft (three studies; 190 women), one type of device versus another device (one study; 201 women), gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics versus hormonal treatment with antibiotics (one study; 52 women) and device combined with gel versus device (one study; 120 women). The total number of participants was 1273, but data on 1133 women were available for analysis. Only two of 16 studies included 100% infertile women; in all other studies, the proportion was variable or unknown.No study reported live birth, but some (five studies) reported outcomes that were used as surrogate outcomes for live birth (term delivery or ongoing pregnancy). Anti-adhesion therapy versus placebo or no treatment following operative hysteroscopy.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the use of a device or hormonal treatment compared to no treatment or placebo with respect to term delivery or ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12; 107 women; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very-low-quality evidence).There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without hormonal treatment or hormonal treatment or barrier gels compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; 560 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 5 to 17). Comparisons of different anti-adhesion therapies following operative hysteroscopyIt was unclear whether there was a difference between the use of a device combined with graft versus device only for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.83; 180 women; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without graft/gel or gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics compared with using a device only or hormonal treatment combined with antibiotics, but the findings of this meta-analysis were affected by evidence quality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83; 451 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchMore research is needed to assess the comparative safety and (cost-)effectiveness of different anti-adhesion treatments compared to no treatment or other interventions for improving key reproductive outcomes in subfertile women.