Trial reportTrials2014
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.
Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00813397 (Manageability and Safety Assessment of the SepraSpray Anti-adhesion Barrier in Abdominal Coelioscopic Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Manageability and Safety Assessment of the SepraSpray Anti-adhesion Barrier in Abdominal Coelioscopic Surgery
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of adhesive small bowel obstruction by anti-adhesion barriers: do they really work?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Review
- Chemical Scalpel: An Experimental Collagenase-Based Treatment for Peritoneal Adhesions.Biology · 2022Article
- Photo-Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid/Carboxymethyl Cellulose Composite Hydrogel as a Dural Substitute to Prevent Post-Surgical Adhesion.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Prevention of Post-Operative Adhesions: A Comprehensive Review of Present and Emerging Strategies.Biomolecules · 2021Review
- Comparison of Honey versus Polylactide Anti-Adhesion Barrier on Peritoneal Adhesion and Healing of Colon Anastomosis in Rabbits.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- Effect ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntra-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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsOf 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%).
conclusionsThis 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00813397. Registered 19 December 2008.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.