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

Endoscopy

Volumn 41, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 971-978

  Dubcenco, E ^a,b,c   Assumpcao, L ^a   Dray, X ^a,d   Gabrielson, K L ^e   Ruben, D S ^e   Pipitone, L J ^a   Donatelli, G ^a,f   Krishnamurty, D M ^a   Baker, J P ^b,c   Marohn, M R ^a   Kalloo, A N ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; AUTOPSY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; LIVER BIOPSY; NATURAL ORIFICE TRANSLUMINAL ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; NONHUMAN; PERITONEUM ADHESION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURVIVAL RATE; SWINE; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ANIMALS; BIOPSY; FEMALE; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; LIVER; PERITONEAL CAVITY; SWINE; TISSUE ADHESIONS;

EID: 70350604641     PISSN: 0013726X     EISSN: 14388812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1215229     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990 72 60-63
2. Menzies D. Peritoneal adhesions. Incidents, cause, and prevention. Surg Ann 1992 24 27-45
3. Menzies D. Postoperative adhesions: their treatment and relevance in clinical practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993 75 147-153
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
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
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
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
8. Ellis H. The clinical significance of adhesion: focus on intestinal obstruction. Eur J Surg 1997 163 Suppl 557 5-9
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
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
11. Schafer M L., Krahenbuh I, Buchler M W. Comparison of adhesion formation in open and laparoscopic surgery. Dig Surg 1998 15 148-152
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
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
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
15. DiZerega G S. Contemporary adhesion prevention. Fertil Steril 1994 62 219-235
16. Murray C, Tuland T. Prevention of postmyomectomy adhesions. Infert Reprod Med Clin N Am 1996 7 169-177
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
18. Kavic S M. Adhesions and adhesiolysis: the role of laparoscopy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2002 6 99-109
19. Schäfer M, Krähenbühl L, Büchler M W. Comparison of adhesion formation in open and laparoscopic surgery. Dig Surg 1998 15 148-152
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
28. Thompson J. Pathogenesis and prevention of adhesion formation. Dig Surg 1998 15 153-157
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
30. Ellis H. The cause and prevention of intestinal adhesions. Br J Surg 1982 69 241-243
31. Ivarsson M L., Falk P, Holmdahl L. Response of visceral peritoneum to abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 2001 88 148-151
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
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
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
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
36. Mage G, Wattiez A, Canis M, et al. Classification of adhesions. Periton Surg 2000 221-228
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
38. Gomel V, Erenus M. Prognostic value of the American Fertility Societys (AFS) classification for distal tubal occlusion [abstract]. Fertil Steril 1990 64 (Suppl 1) P097, S106
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
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
41. Adhesion Scoring Group. Improvement of inter observer reproducibility of adhesion scoring system. Fertil Steril 1994 62 984-988
42. Mettler L. Pelvic adhesions: laparoscopic approach. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003 997 255-268