Adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy in a survival porcine model: comparison of laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)

Background and study aims: Minimizing the invasiveness of operations by using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) may reduce adhesion formation. The aim of the study was to compare rates of adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy by laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric NOTES.

Materials and methods: Experimental comparative survival study, at a university hospital. using 18 female pigs weighing 35 – 40 kg. Peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy was randomized to one of three groups: laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric NOTES. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative care was standardized. Main outcome measures were: (i) survival and complication rates; (ii) assessment of adhesion formation using the Hopkins Adhesion Formation Score at necropsy (day 14).

Results: 100 % of pigs with laparotomy and 33.3 % with laparoscopy had adhesions compared with 16.7 % who underwent transgastric NOTES. Documented adhesion bands totals for each group were: transgastric NOTES 1; laparoscopy 4; laparotomy 17. Median adhesion formation scores were: laparotomy 2.5 (range 2 – 4), compared with laparoscopy 0.0 (0 – 2), and transgastric NOTES 0.0 (0 – 1) (P < 0.001). Spearman coefficient analysis revealed that correlation between adhesion scores assigned by two investigators was excellent (r = 0.99, P < 0.001, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.9978 – 0.9996).

Conclusions: Although this was a short-term study, with a low number of animals, it showed that transgastric NOTES and laparoscopy are associated with statistically significantly lower rates of adhesion formation than open surgery when peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy is performed. Incidence and severity of adhesions were lowest with transgastric NOTES.

References

• 1 Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions – how big is the problem?.  Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990;  72 60-63
• 2 Menzies D. Peritoneal adhesions. Incidents, cause, and prevention.  Surg Ann. 1992;  24 27-45
• 3 Menzies D. Postoperative adhesions: their treatment and relevance in clinical practice.  Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993;  75 147-153
• 4 Fevang B-T S, Fevang J, Lie S A. et al . Long-term prognosis after operation for adhesive small bowel obstruction.  Ann Surg. 2004;  240 193-201
• 5 Wang Q, Hu Z Q, Wang W J. et al . Laparoscopic management of recurrent adhesive small-bowel obstruction: Long-term follow-up.  Surg Today. 2009;  39 493-499
• 6 Lower A M, Hawthorn R J, Ellis H. et al . The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study.  BJOG Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;  107 855-862
• 7 Mathias S D, Kuppermann M, Liberman R F. et al . Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates.  Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  87 321-327
• 8 Ellis H. The clinical significance of adhesion: focus on intestinal obstruction.  Eur J Surg. 1997;  163 Suppl 557 5-9
• 9 Ray N F, Denton W G, Thamer M. et al . Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994.  J Am Coll Surg. 1998;  186 1-9
• 10 Monk B J, Berrman M L, Montz F J. Adhesions after extensive gynecological surgery: clinical significance, etiology, and prevention.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;  170 1396-1403
• 11 Schafer M L, Krahenbuh I, Buchler M W. Comparison of adhesion formation in open and laparoscopic surgery.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 148-152
• 12 Luciano A A. Laparotomy vs laparoscopy. In: DiZerega GS, Malinak LR, Diamond MP, eds Treatment of postoperative surgical adhesions. New York; Wiley 1990: 35-44
• 13 Luciano A A, Maier D B, Koch E I. et al . A comparative study of postoperative adhesions following laser surgery by laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the rabbit model.  Obstet Gynecol. 1989;  74 220-224
• 14 Duron J-J, Jourdan-Da Silva N, Tezenas du Montcel S. et al . Adhesive postoperative small bowel obstruction: incidence and risk factors of recurrence after surgical treatment.  Ann Surg. 2006;  244 750-757
• 15 DiZerega G S. Contemporary adhesion prevention.  Fertil Steril. 1994;  62 219-235
• 16 Murray C, Tuland T. Prevention of postmyomectomy adhesions.  Infert Reprod Med Clin N Am. 1996;  7 169-177
• 17 Luijendijk R W, de Lange D C, Wanters C C. et al . Foreign material in post-operative adhesions.  Ann Surg. 1996;  223 242-248
• 18 Kavic S M. Adhesions and adhesiolysis: the role of laparoscopy.  J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2002;  6 99-109
• 19 Schäfer M, Krähenbühl L, Büchler M W. Comparison of adhesion formation in open and laparoscopic surgery.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 148-152
• 20 Schippers E, Tittel A, Öttinger A. et al . Laparoscopy versus laparotomy: comparison of adhesion formation after bowel resection in a canine model.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 145-147
• 21 Pham B V, Morgan K, Romagnuolo J. et al . Pilot comparison of adhesion formation following colonic perforation and repair in a pig model using a transgastric, laparoscopic, or open surgical technique.  Endoscopy. 2008;  40 664-669
• 22 Roy S, Clark C J, Mohebali K, Bhatt U. et al . Reactive oxygen species and EGR-1 gene expression in surgical postoperative peritoneal adhesions.  World J Surg. 2004;  28 316-320
• 23 Ellis H, Moran B J, Thompson J N. et al . Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.  Lancet. 1999;  353 1476-1480
• 24 Epstein J C, Wilson M S, Wilkosz S. et al . Human peritoneal adhesions show evidence of tissue remodeling and markers of angiogenesis.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;  49 1885-1892
• 25 Herrick S E, Mutsaers S E, Ozua P. et al . Human peritoneal adhesions are highly cellular, innervated, and vascularized.  J Pathol. 2000;  192 67-72
• 26 Jirasek J E, Henzl M R, Uher J. Periovarian peritoneal adhesions in women with endometriosis. Structural patterns.  J Reprod Med. 1998;  43 276-280
• 27 Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine P M. et al . Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, pathophysiology and clinical significance. Recent advances in prevention and management.  Dig Surg. 2001;  18 260-273
• 28 Thompson J. Pathogenesis and prevention of adhesion formation.  Dig Surg. 1998;  15 153-157
• 29 Binnebösel M, Klinge U, Rosch R. et al . Morphology, quality, and composition in mature human peritoneal adhesions.  Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2008;  393 59-66
• 30 Ellis H. The cause and prevention of intestinal adhesions.  Br J Surg. 1982;  69 241-243
• 31 Ivarsson M L, Falk P, Holmdahl L. Response of visceral peritoneum to abdominal surgery.  Br J Surg. 2001;  88 148-151
• 32 Nagata Y, Honjou K, Shindou M. et al . The effects of periovarian adhesions on the results of IVF-ET treatment.  J Fertil Implant. 1997;  14 54-57
• 33 Nagata Y, Honjou K, Shindou M. et al . Alternate prognostic classification for adnexal adhesions divided into peritubal adhesion and periovarian adhesion: Severe periovarian adhesions were the major cause of infertility [abstract].  Fertil Steril. 1997;  33 68 Suppl l: PO90, S135
• 34 Nagata Y, Honjou K, Sonoda M. et al . Periovarian adhesions interfere with the diffusion of gonadotrophin into the follicular fluid.  Hum Reprod. 1998;  13 2072-2076
• 35 Mage G, Pouly J L, de Joliniere J B. et al . A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery.  Fertil Steril. 1986;  46 1807-1810
• 36 Mage G, Wattiez A, Canis M. et al . Classification of adhesions.  Periton Surg. 2000;  221-228
• 37 Marana R, Rizzi M, Muzii L. et al . Correlation between the American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions and distal tubal occlusion, salpingoscopy, and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery.  Fertil Steril. 1995;  64 924-929
• 38 Gomel V, Erenus M. Prognostic value of the American Fertility Society’s (AFS) classification for distal tubal occlusion [abstract].  Fertil Steril. 1990;  64 (Suppl 1) P097, S106
• 39 Hulka J F. Adnexal adhesions: a prognostic staging and classification system based on a five-year survey of fertility surgery results at Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;  144 141-148
• 40 American Fertility Society . The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions.  Fertil Steril. 1988;  49 944-955
• 41 Adhesion Scoring Group . Improvement of inter observer reproducibility of adhesion scoring system.  Fertil Steril. 1994;  62 984-988
• 42 Mettler L. Pelvic adhesions: laparoscopic approach.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;  997 255-268