ArticlePloS one2020
Practical considerations in the use of a porcine model (Sus scrofa domesticus) to assess prevention of postoperative peritubal adhesions.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The pig as a medical model for gynecological diseases: an applied perspective.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infertility has been a common postoperative problem caused by peritoneal adhesions. Since several prophylactic agents have recently shown promising preliminary results, more complete studies comparing their real efficacy and safety are needed urgently. The aim of this study was to investigate and describe practical considerations of a porcine model that can be used to assess such prophylactic agents. First, 10 healthy 5½ months old female pigs (24.3-31.3 Kg) underwent a standardized laparoscopy to provoke peritubal adhesion formation without prophylactic agents. After 30 days, a second-look laparoscopy was performed to evaluate adhesions and perform adnexectomy for histopathological evaluation. Adhesions at different sites were classified by grade, for which the scores range from 0 (no adhesion) to 3 (very strong vascularized adhesions), and also by area, with scores ranging from 0 (no adhesion) to 4 (>75% of the injured area). The histopathological evaluation of the distal uterine horns, oviducts and ovaries were compared withthose from a control group of six healthy pigs with no previous surgery. Biological samples were collected to assess vitality, inflammation and renal, hepatic and hematopoietic systems. There were small (but significant) changes in serum albumin (P = 0.07), globulin (P = 0.07), C-reactive protein (P = 0.011), fibrinogen (P = 0.023) and bilirubin (P<0.01) after 30 days, but all values were within the normal range. No inflammation or abscess formation was observed, but different degrees of adhesion were identified. The estimated occurrence of adhesion (scores >0) and of strong / very strong adhesion (scores >1) was 75% (95% CI: 55-94.9) and 65% (95% CI: 45-85), respectively. The porcine model represents a useful animal platform that can be used to test the efficacy and safety of candidate prophylactic agents intended to prevent postoperative peritubal adhesions formation. We present several practical considerations and measures that can help to minimize animal suffering and avoid problems during such experiments.
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.