Download PDF
Endoscopy 2009; 41(11): 971-978
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1215229
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy in a survival porcine model: comparison of laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)

E.  Dubcenco1 , 2 , 3 , L.  Assumpcao4 , X.  Dray1 , 5 , K.  L.  Gabrielson6 , D.  S.  Ruben6 , L.  J.  Pipitone7 , G.  Donatelli1 , 8 , D.  M.  Krishnamurty1 , J.  P.  Baker2 , 3 , M.  R.  Marohn4 , A.  N.  Kalloo1
  • 1Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • 2St. Michael’s Hospital, Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Canada
  • 3University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  • 4Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • 5APHP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Département Médico-chirurgical de Pathologie digestive, Paris, France
  • 6Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • 7Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • 8P. Stefanini Department of General Surgery, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 9 April 2009

accepted after revision 28 July 2009

Publication Date:
28 October 2009 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de E. Dubcenco et al., pp. 971Endoscopy 2009; 41(11): 1009-1009
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1306757

Background and study aims: Minimizing the invasiveness of operations by using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) may reduce adhesion formation. The aim of the study was to compare rates of adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy by laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric NOTES.

Materials and methods: Experimental comparative survival study, at a university hospital. using 18 female pigs weighing 35 – 40 kg. Peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy was randomized to one of three groups: laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric NOTES. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative care was standardized. Main outcome measures were: (i) survival and complication rates; (ii) assessment of adhesion formation using the Hopkins Adhesion Formation Score at necropsy (day 14).

Results: 100 % of pigs with laparotomy and 33.3 % with laparoscopy had adhesions compared with 16.7 % who underwent transgastric NOTES. Documented adhesion bands totals for each group were: transgastric NOTES 1; laparoscopy 4; laparotomy 17. Median adhesion formation scores were: laparotomy 2.5 (range 2 – 4), compared with laparoscopy 0.0 (0 – 2), and transgastric NOTES 0.0 (0 – 1) (P < 0.001). Spearman coefficient analysis revealed that correlation between adhesion scores assigned by two investigators was excellent (r = 0.99, P < 0.001, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.9978 – 0.9996).

Conclusions: Although this was a short-term study, with a low number of animals, it showed that transgastric NOTES and laparoscopy are associated with statistically significantly lower rates of adhesion formation than open surgery when peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy is performed. Incidence and severity of adhesions were lowest with transgastric NOTES.

References

  • 1 Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions – how big is the problem?.  Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990;  72 60-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Menzies D. Peritoneal adhesions. Incidents, cause, and prevention.  Surg Ann. 1992;  24 27-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Menzies D. Postoperative adhesions: their treatment and relevance in clinical practice.  Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993;  75 147-153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fevang B-T S, Fevang J, Lie S A. et al . Long-term prognosis after operation for adhesive small bowel obstruction.  Ann Surg. 2004;  240 193-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wang Q, Hu Z Q, Wang W J. et al . Laparoscopic management of recurrent adhesive small-bowel obstruction: Long-term follow-up.  Surg Today. 2009;  39 493-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lower A M, Hawthorn R J, Ellis H. et al . The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study.  BJOG Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;  107 855-862
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mathias S D, Kuppermann M, Liberman R F. et al . Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates.  Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  87 321-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ellis H. The clinical significance of adhesion: focus on intestinal obstruction.  Eur J Surg. 1997;  163 Suppl 557 5-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ray N F, Denton W G, Thamer M. et al . Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994.  J Am Coll Surg. 1998;  186 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Monk B J, Berrman M L, Montz F J. Adhesions after extensive gynecological surgery: clinical significance, etiology, and prevention.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;  170 1396-1403
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schafer M L, Krahenbuh I, Buchler M W. Comparison of adhesion formation in open and laparoscopic surgery.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 148-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Luciano A A. Laparotomy vs laparoscopy. In: DiZerega GS, Malinak LR, Diamond MP, eds Treatment of postoperative surgical adhesions. New York; Wiley 1990: 35-44
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Luciano A A, Maier D B, Koch E I. et al . A comparative study of postoperative adhesions following laser surgery by laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the rabbit model.  Obstet Gynecol. 1989;  74 220-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Duron J-J, Jourdan-Da Silva N, Tezenas du Montcel S. et al . Adhesive postoperative small bowel obstruction: incidence and risk factors of recurrence after surgical treatment.  Ann Surg. 2006;  244 750-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 DiZerega G S. Contemporary adhesion prevention.  Fertil Steril. 1994;  62 219-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Murray C, Tuland T. Prevention of postmyomectomy adhesions.  Infert Reprod Med Clin N Am. 1996;  7 169-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Luijendijk R W, de Lange D C, Wanters C C. et al . Foreign material in post-operative adhesions.  Ann Surg. 1996;  223 242-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kavic S M. Adhesions and adhesiolysis: the role of laparoscopy.  J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2002;  6 99-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Schäfer M, Krähenbühl L, Büchler M W. Comparison of adhesion formation in open and laparoscopic surgery.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 148-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schippers E, Tittel A, Öttinger A. et al . Laparoscopy versus laparotomy: comparison of adhesion formation after bowel resection in a canine model.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 145-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pham B V, Morgan K, Romagnuolo J. et al . Pilot comparison of adhesion formation following colonic perforation and repair in a pig model using a transgastric, laparoscopic, or open surgical technique.  Endoscopy. 2008;  40 664-669
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Roy S, Clark C J, Mohebali K, Bhatt U. et al . Reactive oxygen species and EGR-1 gene expression in surgical postoperative peritoneal adhesions.  World J Surg. 2004;  28 316-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ellis H, Moran B J, Thompson J N. et al . Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.  Lancet. 1999;  353 1476-1480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Epstein J C, Wilson M S, Wilkosz S. et al . Human peritoneal adhesions show evidence of tissue remodeling and markers of angiogenesis.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;  49 1885-1892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Herrick S E, Mutsaers S E, Ozua P. et al . Human peritoneal adhesions are highly cellular, innervated, and vascularized.  J Pathol. 2000;  192 67-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jirasek J E, Henzl M R, Uher J. Periovarian peritoneal adhesions in women with endometriosis. Structural patterns.  J Reprod Med. 1998;  43 276-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine P M. et al . Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, pathophysiology and clinical significance. Recent advances in prevention and management.  Dig Surg. 2001;  18 260-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Thompson J. Pathogenesis and prevention of adhesion formation.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 153-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Binnebösel M, Klinge U, Rosch R. et al . Morphology, quality, and composition in mature human peritoneal adhesions.  Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2008;  393 59-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ellis H. The cause and prevention of intestinal adhesions.  Br J Surg. 1982;  69 241-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ivarsson M L, Falk P, Holmdahl L. Response of visceral peritoneum to abdominal surgery.  Br J Surg. 2001;  88 148-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nagata Y, Honjou K, Shindou M. et al . The effects of periovarian adhesions on the results of IVF-ET treatment.  J Fertil Implant. 1997;  14 54-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nagata Y, Honjou K, Shindou M. et al . Alternate prognostic classification for adnexal adhesions divided into peritubal adhesion and periovarian adhesion: Severe periovarian adhesions were the major cause of infertility [abstract].  Fertil Steril. 1997;  33 68 Suppl l: PO90, S135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Nagata Y, Honjou K, Sonoda M. et al . Periovarian adhesions interfere with the diffusion of gonadotrophin into the follicular fluid.  Hum Reprod. 1998;  13 2072-2076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mage G, Pouly J L, de Joliniere J B. et al . A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery.  Fertil Steril. 1986;  46 1807-1810
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mage G, Wattiez A, Canis M. et al . Classification of adhesions.  Periton Surg. 2000;  221-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Marana R, Rizzi M, Muzii L. et al . Correlation between the American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions and distal tubal occlusion, salpingoscopy, and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery.  Fertil Steril. 1995;  64 924-929
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gomel V, Erenus M. Prognostic value of the American Fertility Society’s (AFS) classification for distal tubal occlusion [abstract].  Fertil Steril. 1990;  64 (Suppl 1) P097, S106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hulka J F. Adnexal adhesions: a prognostic staging and classification system based on a five-year survey of fertility surgery results at Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;  144 141-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 American Fertility Society . The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions.  Fertil Steril. 1988;  49 944-955
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Adhesion Scoring Group . Improvement of inter observer reproducibility of adhesion scoring system.  Fertil Steril. 1994;  62 984-988
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Mettler L. Pelvic adhesions: laparoscopic approach.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;  997 255-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

A. N. KallooMD 

Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology

Cancer Research Building II
1550 Orleans Street, Suite 1M12
Baltimore, MD 21231
USA

Fax: +1-410-6147340

Email: akalloo@jhmi.edu

      >