The usefulness of re-attachability of anti-adhesive cross-linked gelatin film and the required physical and biological properties.

[1] Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC. Buchan S, Crowe AM. Adhesion-related

hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet

1999; 353(9163):1467–1480.

[2] Boland GM, Weigel RJ. Formation and prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions. J

Surg Res 2006;132(1):3–12.

[3] Beck DE, Opelka FG, Bailey HR. Incidence of small-bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis

after open colorectaland general surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:241–248.

[4] Swank DJ, Swank-Bordewijl SCG, Hop WCJ. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with

chronic abdominal pain: A blinded randomized controlled multi-centre trial. Lancet

2003;361(9365):1247–1251.

[5] Caspi E, Halperin Y, Bukovsky I. The importance of peri-adnexal adhesions in tubal

reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril 1979;31(3):296–300.

12

[6] Gere SZ. Biochemical events in peritoneal tissue repair. Eur J Surg 1997;577:10–16.

[7] Genevieve M. Boland BA, Ronald JW. Formation and prevention of postoperative abdominal

adhesions. J Surg Res 2006;132(1):3–12.

[8] Brian CW, Alyssa P. Abdominal adhesions: Current and novel therapies. J Surg Res

2011;165(1):91–111.

[9] Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine PM. Dervenis C, Young R. Peritoneal adhesions: Etiology,

pathophysiology, and clinical significance. Dig Surg 2001;18(4):260–273.

[10] Temiz A, Ozturk C, Bakunov A. A new material for prevention of peritendinous fibrotic

adhesions after tendon repair: oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed), an absorbable adhesion

barrier. Int Orthop. 2008;32(3):389-394

[11] Kai M, Maeda K, Tasaki M. Evaluation of a Spray-type, Novel Dextrin Hydrogel Adhesion

Barrier Under Laparoscopic Conditions in a Porcine Uterine Horn Adhesion Model. JMIG.

2018;25(3):447-454

[12] Genevieve M. Boland BA, Ronald JW. Formation and prevention of postoperative

abdominal adhesions. J Surg Res 2006;132(1):3-12.

[13] Michel PD, Ellen LB, Beverly A. Seprafilm® adhesion barrier: (1) a review of preclinical

animal, and human investigational studies. Gynecol Surg 2012;9(3):237-245.

[14] James MB, Merril TD, Victor WF. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a

sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind

multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 1996;183(4):297-306.

[15] Wietske WV, Larissa NLT, Heert JME. Fewer intraperitoneal adhesions with use of

hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose membrane. Annals of Surg 2002;235(2):193-199.

[16] David EB, Zane C, James WF. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of

13

the safety of seprafilm® adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon

Rectum 2003;46(10):1310-1319.

[17] Horii T, Tsujimoto H, Miyamoto H. Physical and biological properties of a novel antiadhesion material made of thermally cross-linked gelatin film: Investigation of the usefulness as

anti-adhesion material. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2018;106(2):689-696.

[18] Tsujimoto H, Tanzawa A, Matoba M. The anti-adhesive effect of thermally cross-linked

gelatin film and its influence on the intestinal anastomosis in canine models. J Biomed Mater Res

Part B 2013;101(1):99-109.

[19] Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I. A novel instrument and technique for using seprafilm

hyaluronic acid/ carboxymethylcellulose membrane during laparoscopic myomectomy. JLAST

2006;16(5):497-502.

[20] Chuang YC, Fan CN, Cho FN. A novel technique to apply a Seprafilm (hyaluronatecarboxymethylcellulose) barrier following laparoscopic surgeries. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5):19591963.

[21] Ota K, Sato K, Ogasawara J. Safe and easy technique for the laparoscopic application of

Seprafilm® in gynecologic surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2018;12(2):242-245

[22] Jing Q, Liangqi O, Chin CK. Stiffness, strength and adhesion characterization of

electrochemically deposited conjugated polymer films. Acta Biomater. 2016;31:114-121.

[23] Palmer CS, Gabbe BJ, Cameron PA. Defining major trauma using the 2008 Abbreviated

Injury Scale. Injury. 2016;47(1):109-115.

[24] The Surgical Membrane Study Group Prophylaxis of pelvic sidewall adhesions with GoreTex surgical membrane: A multicenter clinical investigation. The Surgical Membrane Study

Group. Fertil Steril. 1992;57(4):921–923.

14

[25] Sawada T, Nishizawa H, Nishio E, Kadowaki M. Postoperative adhesion prevention with an

oxidized regenerated cellulose adhesion barrier in infertile women. J Reprod Med.

2000;45(5):387-389.

[26] Wiseman DM, Gottlick LE, Diamond MP. Effect of thrombin-induced hemostasis on the

efficacy of an absorbable adhesion barrier. J Reproductive Med. 1992;37(9):766-770.

[27] Andrea T, Antonio M, Marcello G. Adhesion formation after intracapsular myomectomy

with or without adhesion barrier. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1780-1785.

[28] Suto T, Watanabe M, Endo T. The Primary Result of Prospective Randomized Multicenter

Trial of New Spray-Type Bio-absorbable Adhesion Barrier System (TCD-11091) Against

Postoperative Adhesion Formation. J Gastrointestinal Surg. 2017;21:1683-1691.

[29] Kojima Y, Sakamoto K, Okuzawa K. Experience of using a spray-type anti-adhesion barrier

in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. J Surg Case Report. 2019;3:1-3.

15

Tables

TABLE 1. Tissue Injury Scores

Description

Score

Minor (No Injury)

Moderate (A little hemorrhage with small tissue injury)

Serious (Middle hemorrhage with tissue injury)

Severe (Hemorrhage with sharp tissue injury)

TABLE 2. The Adhesion Scores

Category and Description

Score

(Extent)

No Involvment

<25% of the site involved

<50% of the site involved

<75% of the site involved

<100% of the site involved

(Severity)

No adhesion present

Adhesions fall apart

Adhesions can be lysed with traction

Adhesions requiring <50% sharp dissection

Adhesions requiring <50% sharp dissection

16

Figure captions

FIGURE.1

The schematic illustrations of Tensile test (a), Buckling test (b) and Shearing test (c).

FIGURE.2

(a): The maximum tensile loads of each thickness of gelatin film and the conventional film. (b):

The maximum buckling loads of each thickness of gelatin film and the conventional film.

Statistically significant relative to conventional film (*:p<0.05, **:p<0.01)

FIGURE.3

(a): The fracture number of each thickness of gelatin film and the conventional film in shearing

test. (b): The tissue injury scores of of each thickness of gelatin film and the conventional film.

Statistically significant relative to conventional film (**:p<0.01)

FIGURE.4

The anti-adhesion scores of anti-adhesion effect test with 30 μm thickness of gelatin film, reattached gelatin film and the conventional film. Statistically significant relative to control

(*:p<0.05)

17

Figures

FIGURE.1

FIGURE.2

18

FIGURE.3

FIGURE.4

19

...