Acta chirurgica Belgica · 2006
Does povidone-iodine liposome hydrogel influence postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adibelli M A, Ozcan A H, Kismet K, Erel S, Kilicoglu B, Gollu A, Akkus M A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of PVP-I liposome hydrogel on intraperitoneal postoperative adhesions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty Wistar -Albino male rats were randomly divided into three groups. After midline laparotomy, a 1 cm(2) area of the caecum was abraded with a sterile gauze until subserosal haemorrhage had developed. A 1 x 1 cm patch of peritoneum located opposite of caecal abrasion was completely dissected. In group 1 (control group, C) adhesion induction was performed and nothing was applied to the wounds. In group 2 and 3, PVP-I solution (3%) (group 2, PI) and PVP-I liposome hydrogel (group 3, PIL) were applied to the caecal abrasion areas and peritoneal defects. Adhesions were classified according to a classification system based on the evaluation of the appearance, extent and strength of the adhesions on postoperative 2lst day.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference of the adhesion scores between the groups (U1 = 45, p > 0.05 ; U2 = 48, p > 0.05 ; U3 = 47.5, p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that PVP liposome hydrogel did not influence postoperative intraabdominal adhesions and should be further explored for its potential use in various intraabdominal procedures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty Wistar -Albino male rats were randomly divided into three groups. After midline laparotomy, a 1 cm(2) area of the caecum was abraded with a sterile gauze until subserosal haemorrhage had developed. A 1 x 1 cm patch of peritoneum located opposite of caecal abrasion was completely dissected. In group 1 (control group, C) adhesion induction was performed and nothing was applied to the wounds. In group 2 and 3, PVP-I solution (3%) (group 2, PI) and PVP-I liposome hydrogel (group 3, PIL) were applied to the caecal abrasion areas and peritoneal defects. Adhesions were classified according to a classification system based on the evaluation of the appearance, extent and strength of the adhesions on postoperative 2lst day.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference of the adhesion scores between the groups (U1 = 45, p > 0.05 ; U2 = 48, p > 0.05 ; U3 = 47.5, p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that PVP liposome hydrogel did not influence postoperative intraabdominal adhesions and should be further explored for its potential use in various intraabdominal procedures.