Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25348087›Full record

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.

Stéphane V Berdah, Christophe Mariette, Christine Denet, Yves Panis, Christophe Laurent, Eddy Cotte, Nöel Huten, Eliane Le Peillet Feuillet, Jean-Jacques Duron

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00813397 nacompletednot on this map

Manageability and Safety Assessment of the SepraSpray Anti-adhesion Barrier in Abdominal Coelioscopic Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorGenzyme, a Sanofi CompanyRan2008 to 2009Enrolled210ConditionsAdhesion PreventionArmsSepraspray
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Effect ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Stéphane V BerdahChirurgie Digestive, Hôpital Nord, CERC (Centre d'Enseignement et de Recherche Chirurgical), Aix-Marseille Université, Chemin des Bourrellys, 13915 Marseille, Cedex 20, France. stephane.berdah@ap-hm.fr.
Christophe Mariette
Christine Denet
Yves Panis
Christophe Laurent
Eddy Cotte
Nöel Huten
Eliane Le Peillet Feuillet
Jean-Jacques Duron
Aix-Marseille Université · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRHôpital Beaujon · FRHôpital Claude Huriez · FRHôpital Lyon Sud · FRHôpital Saint-André · FRInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FRSanofi (France) · FRSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LaparoscopyAbscessAdultAgedCarboxymethylcellulose SodiumColonFemaleFistulaFranceHumansHyaluronic AcidMaleMiddle AgedPeritoneal DiseasesPeritonitisPowdersCarboxymethylcellulose SodiumHyaluronic AcidPowders

Identifiers

PMID25348087
PMCPMC4233044
OpenAlexW2106629481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.