Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34148173›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2022

Effect of hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm) on outcomes of abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Shahin Hajibandeh, Shahab Hajibandeh, Samerah Saeed, Jonty Bird, LavaKrishna Kannappa, Indika Ratnayake

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shahin Hajibandeh *Department of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK. shahin_hajibandeh@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6159-1068
Shahab Hajibandeh *Department of General Surgery, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Betsi Cadwaladr University Board, Wrexham, UK.
Samerah SaeedDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell and West, Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Jonty BirdDepartment of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK.
LavaKrishna KannappaDepartment of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK.
Indika RatnayakeDepartment of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK.
County Hospital · GBBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board · GBSandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate comparative outcomes of abdominal surgery with and without hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm).We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits. Small bowel obstruction, anastomotic leak, surgical site infections, ileus, and severity of adhesions were the evaluated outcome measures. Thirteen randomised controlled trials reporting a total of 3665 patients evaluating outcomes of abdominal surgeries with (n = 1800) or without (n = 1865) use of Seprafilm were identified. Use of Seprafilm was associated with significantly lower risk of small bowel obstruction (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.73, P = 0.0001) but significantly higher rate of anastomotic leak (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.15-3.00 P = 0.01). Moreover, while Seprafilm resulted in significantly more adhesions-free patients (RR 5.57, 95% CI 3.37-9.19, P < 0.0001) compared to no Seprafilm, its use was associated with significantly lower grade 2 (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P = 0.003) or 3 (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.55, P < 0.0001) adhesions. There was no significant difference in surgical site infection (RR: 1.21, 95 CI 0.86-1.70, P = 0.28), intra-abdominal abscess (RR 1.46, 95 CI 0.92-2.32, P = 0.11) or paralytic ileus (RR 0.97, 95 CI 0.68-1.38, P = 0.87) between two groups. The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis findings are conclusive. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that Seprafilm reduces the risk of small bowel obstruction and severity of adhesions after abdominal surgery. However, it may increase the risk of anastomotic leak. We recommend use of Seprafilm in any abdominal surgery which does not involve an anastomosis.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakIntestinal ObstructionAbsorbable ImplantsHumansHyaluronic AcidPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTissue AdhesionsHyaluronic AcidSeprafilmAnti-adhesion barrierSeprafilmSmall bowel obstruction

Identifiers

PMID34148173
OpenAlexW3176652432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.