OBJECTIVE: The formation of adhesions after gynecological surgery not only has detrimental impacts on those affected, including pain, obstruction, and infertility, but also imposes a high economic burden on healthcare systems worldwide.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the adhesion prevention potential of all currently available adhesion barriers for gynecological surgery.
METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of adhesion barriers as compared with peritoneal irrigation or no treatment in gynecological surgery. Only RCTs with second-look surgery to evaluate adhesions in the pelvic/abdominal (but not intrauterine) cavity were included.
RESULTS: We included 45 RCTs with a total of 4,120 patients examining a total of 10 unique types of barriers in second-look gynecological surgery. While RCTs on oxidized regenerated cellulose (significant improvement in 6 of 14 trials), polyethylene glycol with/without other agents (4/10), hyaluronic acid and hyaluronate + carboxymethylcellulose (7/10), icodextrin (1/3), dextran (0/3), fibrin-containing agents (1/2), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (1/1), N,O-carboxymethylchitosan (0/1), and modified starch (1/1) overall showed inconsistent findings, results for expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, hyaluronic acid, and modified starch yielded the greatest improvements regarding adhesion reduction at 75%, 0-67%, and 85%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Best results for adhesion prevention were reported after applying Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane, hyaluronic acid, and 4DryField®. As Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane is nonabsorbable, it is associated with a greater risk of new adhesion formation due to second-look surgery to remove the product. 4DryField® yielded the greatest improvement in adhesion score compared to all other barrier agents (85%). For better comparability, future studies should use standardized scores and put more emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures, such as pain and infertility.

Chronic pain is a frequent post-operative complication, affecting ~20-40% of patients who have undergone surgery of the female genital or alimentary tract. Chronic pain is an important risk factor for diminished quality of life after surgery. Adhesions are frequently associated with chronic post-operative pain; however, surgical treatment of adhesion-related pain is controversial.
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and harms of surgical interventions for chronic post-operative pain attributable to adhesions.
A search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL, without restrictions pertaining to date, publication status or language. Randomized trials and cohort studies from all surgical interventions for chronic post-operative pain were considered eligible. Patients with a concomitant diagnosis that could cause chronic pain (e.g. endometriosis or inflammatory conditions) were excluded. Outcome measures were graded according to clinical relevance, with improvement of pain at long-term follow-up regarded as most clinically relevant.
A total of 4294 unique citations were identified, of which 13 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Two of the analysed studies were randomized trials, of which one had a low risk of bias. Only one trial, randomizing between laparoscopic adhesiolysis without an adhesion barrier and diagnostic laparoscopy, reported improvement of pain at long-term follow-up. In this trial, pain improved in 55.8% of patients after adhesiolysis and in 41.7% of patients in the control group; however, the difference was not significant (relative risk (RR) 1.34; 95% CI: 0.89-2.02). Most non-randomized studies had mid-length follow-up (6-12 months). In pooled analyses of trials and non-randomized studies, improvement of pain was reported in 72% of patients who underwent adhesiolysis (95% CI: 61-83%) at any follow-up longer than 3 months. The incidence of negative laparoscopies was 20% (95% CI: 10-30%). The overall incidence of complications following laparoscopic adhesiolysis was 4% (95% CI: 1-6%).
Laparoscopic adhesiolysis reduces pain from adhesions in ~70% of patients in the initial phase after treatment. However, there is little evidence for long-term efficacy of adhesiolysis for chronic pain. Other drawbacks of laparoscopic adhesiolysis are the high rate of negative laparoscopies and the risk of bowel injury. At present, there is little evidence to support routine use of adhesiolysis in treatment for chronic pain. New research is needed to investigate whether the results of adhesiolysis can be improved with new techniques for diagnosis and prevention of adhesion reformation.

Intra-uterine adhesions are a major cause of secondary infertility. The prevalence of adhesions is probably underestimated due to the heterogeneity of the symptoms. An exhaustive literature search using search engines MEDLINE, Pubmed, Cochrane library and Web of Science was performed to make a focus on the origins, consequences and methods of prevention of intra-uterine adhesions. Intra-uterine adhesions are likely to occur after any endo-uterine surgery via dysregulated activation of coagulation chain linked to the inflammatory process. Early and late obstetric complications are also recognized as caused by adhesions. The diagnosis is currently performed by hysteroscopy but it remains an invasive procedure even if it can be done with an ambulatory management. Several research approaches inspired by intra-abdominal surgery for the prevention of pelvic adhesions have been developed. However, no current method of prevention has proven its effectiveness in terms of improving spontaneous fertility. The improvement in surgical practices, the design of new intra-uterine medical devices and new research especially in the field of endometrial stem cells can maybe reduce the rate of adhesions end their complications after intra-uterine surgery.

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of any anti-adhesion barrier gel used after operative hysteroscopy for treating infertility associated with uterine cavity abnormalities. Gynecologists might use any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy in infertile women for decreasing de novo adhesion formation; the use of any barrier gel is associated with less severe de novo adhesions and lower mean adhesion scores. Nevertheless, infertile women should be counseled that there is at the present no evidence for higher live birth or pregnancy rates. There is a lack of data for the outcome miscarriage. Preclinical studies suggest that the use of biodegradable surgical barriers may decrease postsurgical adhesion formation. Observational studies in the human report conflicting results. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialized Register (10 April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 4 April 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 4 April 2013), and other electronic databases of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (from 1 January 1992 to 13 April 2013); we also contacted experts in the field. We included the randomized comparisons between any anti-adhesion barrier gel versus another barrier gel, placebo, or no adjunctive therapy following operative hysteroscopy. Primary outcomes were live birth rates and de novo adhesion formation at second-look hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage rates, mean adhesion scores, and severity of adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy. Two authors independently assessed eligible studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information or other clarification. Five trials met the inclusion criteria. There is no evidence for an effect favoring the use of any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy for the key outcomes of live birth or clinical pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 3.0, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 26, P = 0.32, one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence); there were no data on the outcome miscarriage. The use of any gel following operative hysteroscopy decreases the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy at 1 to 3 months (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.45 to 0.93, P = 0.02, five studies, 372 women, very low quality evidence). The number needed to treat to benefit is 9 (95 % CI 5 to 33). The use of auto-cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for fibroids, endometrial polyps, or uterine septa is associated with a lower mean adhesion score at second-look hysteroscopy at 3 months (mean difference (MD) -1.44, 95 % CI -1.83 to -1.05, P < 0.00001, one study, 24 women; this benefit is even larger in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for intrauterine adhesions(MD -3.30, 95 % CI -3.43 to -3.17, P < 0.00001, one study, 19 women). After using any gel following operative hysteroscopy, there are more American Fertility Society 1988 stage I (mild) adhesions (RR 2.81, 95 % CI 1.13 to 7.01, P = 0.03, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4). Similarly there are less\' moderate or severe adhesions\' at second-look hysteroscopy (RR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.10 to 0.67, P = 0.006, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4) (all very low quality evidence). There are some concerns for the non-methodological quality. Only two trials included infertile women; in the remaining three studies, it is not clear whether and how many participants suffered from infertility. Therefore, the applicability of the findings of the included studies to the target population under study should be questioned. Moreover, only one small trial studied the effects of anti-adhesion barrier gels for the key outcome of pregnancy; the length of follow-up was, however, not specified. More well-designed and adequately powered randomized studies are needed to assess whether the use of any anti-adhesion gel affects the key reproductive outcomes in a target population of infertile women.