ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of 4DryField PH vs. seprafilm in reducing incidence of adhesion and preventing ASBO following abdominopelvic surgery: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adhesions form between tissue surfaces due to inflammation and trauma to tissue. Adhesions are a common postoperative complication of abdominopelvic surgery, often leading to chronic pain, adhesive small bowel obstruction, and increased healthcare costs. Anti-adhesive agents such as Seprafilm and 4DryField PH are employed to mitigate these risks, but direct comparisons between these barriers are lacking, creating a need to evaluate their relative efficacy. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of 4DryField PH and Seprafilm in preventing postoperative adhesion formation and associated complications such as ASBO in patients undergoing abdominopelvic surgery. Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries identified 7 studies, including RCTs and cohort studies. Inclusion criteria were studies involving patients aged 18 and above who underwent abdominopelvic surgery and received either 4DryField PH or Seprafilm. Studies that included patients with extensive pre-existing abdominal conditions and malignancies were excluded. Data was extracted on adhesion incidence, severity, extent, chronic pain, and ASBO. Results: 4DryField PH consistently reduced adhesion burden in second-look studies and showed no recurrent ASBO in one cohort. Seprafilm demonstrated modest benefit in one colorectal study but not in another. Due to non-overlapping populations, direct comparison was not possible. Exploratory trends favoured both agents over no barrier. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that 4DryField PH may reduce adhesion burden in settings where second-look laparoscopy is performed, while Seprafilm may offer modest clinical benefit in selected colorectal surgery contexts. Because no head-to-head trials exist and the study populations differ, these findings remain hypothesis-generating. Further multicentre trials with standardised outcomes are needed to define their comparative roles.
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.