Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34036409›Full record

Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Adhesion prevention after endometriosis surgery - results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial with second-look laparoscopy.

Bernhard Krämer, Jürgen Andress, Felix Neis, Sascha Hoffmann, Sara Brucker, Stefan Kommoss, Alice Höller

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Adhesion barriers in gynecologic surgeries and cesarean section: An Asia-Pacific expert panel consensus recommendation.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Feasibility and safety of 4DryFieldArchives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026
    Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernhard Krämer *Department for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. Bernhard.kraemer@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0884-107X
Jürgen Andress *Department for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Felix NeisDepartment for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Sascha HoffmannDepartment for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Sara BruckerDepartment for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefan KommossDepartment for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Alice HöllerDepartment for Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
University Children's Hospital Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdhesion formation after endometriosis surgery is a severe problem affecting up to 90% of patients. Possible complications include chronic pain, ileus, and secondary infertility. Therefore, effective adhesion prophylaxis is desirable, for which the adhesion barrier 4DryField

methodsFifty patients with extensive and deep infiltrating endometriosis were included in this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial with two-staged laparoscopic approach. The patients were randomized into two groups, one receiving 4DryField

resultsBoth groups were comparable with respect to relevant patient parameters. Severity and extent of adhesions were significantly reduced by 85% in the 4DryField

conclusionAdhesion formation could be reduced significantly by 85% by application of the adhesion barrier 4DryField

trial registrationTrial registration main ID: DRKS00014720, secondary ID: U1111-1213-4142; date of registration 09th May 2018.

Indexed as

EndometriosisLaparoscopyFemaleHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTissue Adhesions4DryField® PHAdhesion prophylaxisBarrier gelClinical studyDeep infiltrating endometriosisSecond look

Identifiers

PMID34036409
PMCPMC8481146
OpenAlexW3165664547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.