ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Evaluation of a Sprayable Hydrogel for Surgical Adhesion Prevention in Rat and Rabbit Models.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of a sprayable adhesion barrier in the prevention of postoperative adhesions. Methods: Established rat and rabbit models of abdominal adhesion formation were used to evaluate AeroVeil efficacy. First, 24 Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to untreated control, Seprafilm-treated, or AeroVeil-treated test groups. Defects were created on abdominal wall and cecum surfaces, with sutures around the injury perimeter to increase the likelihood of adhesion formation. Treated animals were sprayed with recommended AeroVeil dosing over both injured surfaces; a Seprafilm sheet was placed between the two injured surfaces; control animals received no treatment. Additionally, AeroVeil application was compared to untreated controls in 24 New Zealand White rabbits. The abdominal wall and cecum surfaces were abraded to induce adhesion formation. AeroVeil animals were treated with the recommended product dose over both injured tissue sites; control animals were closed without treatment. Results: The incidence, extent, and severity of postoperative adhesion formation were measured by blinded veterinary surgeons at 7 or 28 days. In the rat model, control animals formed adhesions between the cecum and abdominal wall injury sites in 7 of 8 animals. Incidence of this primary adhesion significantly reduced (p < 0.05) to 1 of 8 in Seprafilm-treated animals and 0 of 7 in AeroVeil treated animals, with similarly significant reduction in the extent and severity scores. In the rabbit model, application of AeroVeil decreased the incidence of adhesion formation, with a statistically significant decrease in total adhesion score across all tissue groups. Conclusion: AeroVeil application reduced the incidence and severity of postoperative adhesion formation in two different animal models, with results in the rat model directly compared to an established clinical control (Seprafilm). These findings justify further investigation of AeroVeil in expanded animal models to facilitate clinical translation.
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.