Remote efficacy for two different forms of hyaluronate-based adhesion barriers

Regulation of synthesis and roles of hyaluronan in peritoneal dialysis

Hyaluronan (HA) is a ubiquitous extracellular matrix glycosaminoglycan composed of repeated disaccharide units of alternating D-glucuronic acid and D-N-acetylglucosamine residues linked via alternating β-1,4 and β-1,3 glycosidic bonds. HA is synthesized in humans by HA synthase (HAS) enzymes 1, 2, and 3, which are encoded by the corresponding HAS genes. Previous in vitro studies have shown characteristic changes in HAS expression and increased HA synthesis in response to wounding and proinflammatory cytokines in human peritoneal mesothelial cells. In addition, in vivo models and human peritoneal biopsy samples have provided evidence of changes in HA metabolism in the fibrosis that at present accompanies peritoneal dialysis treatment. This review discusses these published observations and how they might contribute to improvement in peritoneal dialysis.

A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial to assess the safety, ease of use, and reliability of hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose powder adhesion barrier versus no barrier in colorectal laparoscopic surgery

Background

Intra-peritoneal adhesions are frequent following abdominal surgery and are the most common cause of small bowel obstructions. A hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose (HA/CMC) film adhesion barrier has been shown to reduce adhesion formation in abdominal surgery. An HA/CMC powder formulation was developed for application during laparoscopic procedures.

Methods

This was an exploratory, prospective, randomised, single-blind, parallel-group, Phase IIIb, multicentre study conducted at 15 hospitals in France to assess the safety of HA/CMC powder versus no adhesion barrier following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Subjects ≥18 years of age who were scheduled for colorectal laparoscopy (Mangram contamination class I‒III) within 8 weeks of selection were eligible, regardless of aetiology. Participants were randomised 1:1 to the HA/CMC powder or no adhesion barrier group using a centralised randomisation list. Patients assigned to HA/CMC powder received a single application of 1 to 10 g on adhesion-prone areas. In the no adhesion barrier group, no adhesion barrier or placebo was applied. The primary safety assessments were the incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, and surgical site infections (SSIs) for 30 days following surgery. Between-group comparisons were made using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Of those randomised to the HA/CMC powder (n = 105) or no adhesion barrier (n = 104) groups, one patient in each group discontinued prior to the study end (one death in each group). Adverse events were more frequent in the HA/CMC powder group versus the no adhesion barrier group (63% vs. 39%; P <0.001), as were serious adverse events (28% vs. 11%; P <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the HA/CMC powder group and the no adhesion barrier group in SSIs (21% vs. 14%; P = 0.216) and serious SSIs (12% vs. 9%; P = 0.38), or in the most frequent serious SSIs of pelvic abscess (5% and 2%; significance not tested), anastomotic fistula (3% and 4%), and peritonitis (2% and 3%).

Conclusions

This exploratory study found significantly higher rates of adverse events and serious adverse events in the HA/CMC powder group compared with the no adhesion barrier group in laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00813397. Registered 19 December 2008.

Peritoneal adhesions after laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery

Although laparoscopy has the potential to reduce peritoneal trauma and post-operative peritoneal adhesion formation, only one randomized controlled trial and a few comparative retrospective clinical studies have addressed this issue. Laparoscopy reduces de novo adhesion formation but has no efficacy in reducing adhesion reformation after adhesiolysis. Moreover, several studies have suggested that the reduction of de novo post-operative adhesions does not seem to have a significant clinical impact. Experimental data in animal models have suggested that CO₂ pneumoperitoneum can cause acute peritoneal inflammation during laparoscopy depending on the insufflation pressure and the surgery duration. Broad peritoneal cavity protection by the insufflation of a low-temperature humidified gas mixture of CO₂, N₂O and O₂ seems to represent the best approach for reducing peritoneal inflammation due to pneumoperitoneum. However, these experimental data have not had a significant impact on the modification of laparoscopic instrumentation. In contrast, surgeons should train themselves to perform laparoscopy quickly, and they should complete their learning curves before testing chemical anti-adhesive agents and anti-adhesion barriers. Chemical anti-adhesive agents have the potential to exert broad peritoneal cavity protection against adhesion formation, but when these agents are used alone, the concentrations needed to prevent adhesions are too high and could cause major post-operative side effects. Anti-adhesion barriers have been used mainly in open surgery, but some clinical data from laparoscopic surgeries are already available. Sprays, gels, and fluid barriers are easier to apply in laparoscopic surgery than solid barriers. Results have been encouraging with solid barriers, spray barriers, and gel barriers, but they have been ambiguous with fluid barriers. Moreover, when barriers have been used alone, the maximum protection against adhesion formation has been no greater than 60%. A recent small, randomized clinical trial suggested that the combination of broad peritoneal cavity protection with local application of a barrier could be almost 100% effective in preventing post-operative adhesion formation. Future studies should confirm the efficacy of this global strategy in preventing adhesion formation after laparoscopy by focusing on clinical end points, such as reduced incidences of bowel obstruction and abdominal pain and increased fertility.

Prevention of postsurgical adhesions using an ultrapure alginate-based gel

Background

Postoperative adhesion formation is a common consequence of abdominal surgery, and constitutes a major source of morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated an ultrapure alginate-based antiadhesive barrier gel.

Methods

Experiments were performed in a rat model with caecal abrasion and peritoneal side wall excision. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adhesions at 14 days after surgery. In experiment 1 (24 rats), animals treated with alginate gel were compared with controls that had no antiadhesive barrier. In experiment 2 (42 rats), alginate gel was compared with sodium hyaluronate carboxymethyl cellulose (HA/CMC) membrane and with no antiadhesive barrier. To check for any remote action of the gel, in experiment 3 (45 rats) application of alginate gel to the ipsilateral versus contralateral side of injury was compared with no antiadhesive barrier.

Results

In experiment 1, ultrapure alginate gel reduced the incidence of adhesions from eight of 12 in control animals to one in 12 (P = 0·009). Tissue healing assessed by histology was similar in both groups. In experiment 2, ultrapure alginate gel and HA/CMC membrane showed similar antiadhesive effectiveness, reducing the incidence of adhesions from ten of 14 rats in the control group to three of 14 (P = 0·021) and two of 14 (P = 0·006) respectively. In experiment 3, ultrapure alginate gel reduced the incidence of adhesions at the site of direct application (1 of 15) compared with controls (13 of 15; P = 0·001), but not if applied remotely (9 of 15; P = 0·214).

Conclusion

Ultrapure alginate gel decreased the incidence of postoperative adhesion formation in this rat model.