The prevention of postsurgical adhesions is one of the greatest unmet needs in medicine today. Surgical series have shown that adhesions are present after 80%-90% of abdominal and pelvic surgeries, and that these abnormal fibrous connections have a tremendous propensity to reform after adhesiolysis. (We will define adhesions here as “attachments between surfaces at nonanatomical locations.”)
In gynecologic surgery, postoperative adhesions are a frequent cause of infertility, pain, bowel obstruction, and difficulty in later procedures. Adhesions can occur after minimally invasive procedures, which have the potential for trocar injury to structures adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. Other intraoperative injuries can occur due to obscured normal anatomy or restricted access. A significant number of patients also undergo second surgeries to treat sequelae that are directly related to adhesions.
The literature is replete with studies of adhesion development and reports of its incidence and its consequences. Still, the problem of postoperative adhesion development often goes underestimated or unrecognized. This is because we don't routinely perform early second-look operations to assess adhesion development, and because there are no serum markers or sensitive imaging techniques to allow their identification. In addition, we do not follow our patients who seek care from other providers as insurance coverage changes or as other health problems arise, such as bowel obstruction being treated by a general surgeon.
As gynecologic surgeons, we must appreciate that while infections, endometriosis, and other peritoneal insults may contribute to adhesion development, surgery is the most common cause. We also must appreciate how tissue injury leads to the development of adhesions, and why adhesion reformation so commonly occurs.
This understanding is critical to our consideration and use of the “barrier” products currently available for reducing postsurgical adhesions — and critical to our efforts to employ the tenets of gynecologic microsurgery and to achieve as optimal a surgical outcome as possible. At this point in time, use of approved surgical adjuvants in combination with good surgical technique offers the best chance at adhesion reduction and prevention.
Incidence of Adhesions
A series of reports published in the early to mid-1980s documented how commonly adhesions develop after various types of reproductive pelvic surgery. Through early second-look laparoscopy, postoperative adhesions were found to occur, in these studies, in 55%–100% of patients after their primary gynecologic surgery.
In a multicenter study published in 1987, my colleagues and I also showed that gynecologic surgeries performed at the time of laparotomy are frequently complicated by both adhesion reformation and de novo adhesion formation. More than half of the 161 women (51%) who had a second-look laparoscopy 1–12 weeks after reproductive pelvic surgery were found to have de novo adhesion formation (adhesions in at least one new location). Adhesion reformation was also widespread: At the initial laparotomy, 121 of the patients (all of whom were treated for infertility) were noted to have some form of adhesion, and adhesion reformation subsequently occurred at the site of adhesiolysis in 85% of these women, with no differences with respect to adhesion type (Fertil. Steril. 1987;47;864–6).
It was hoped, and largely expected, that the growth of laparoscopy and minimally invasive surgery approaches in more recent years would reduce postoperative adhesion development — that minimally invasive techniques would prove to be less adhesiogenic than laparotomy. Questions remain, but thus far, such hopes have diminished and our expectations for significant improvement have gone unsubstantiated.
One multicenter study on adhesion development after initial laparoscopic procedures found that the incidence of adhesions at an early second-look procedure was 97% — no lower than in prior reports of second-look laparoscopy after laparotomy.
In this study, 68 women underwent operative laparoscopic procedures, including adhesiolysis, and had second-look procedures within 90 days. The good news was that de novo adhesion formation between the two laparoscopic procedures occurred in only 8 of the women (12%) and at 11 of 47 possible sites — much less frequently than after laparotomy. Adhesion scores also decreased at the second look compared with the status of the pelvis at the initial procedure. Still, with the high rate of adhesion reformation, almost all of the women developed postoperative adhesions.
Thus, even when the initial procedure was performed laparoscopically, adhesion development was an all-too-common occurrence, and appeared to be independent of the character of the initial adhesion (Fertil. Steril. 1991;55:700–4).
More recently, data from randomized studies of various adhesion barriers and potential anti-adhesion adjuvants have further dashed hopes that laparoscopy per se can reduce adhesion development.
For instance, in a recent small pilot study of a fibrin-based product called Adhexil, “control” ovaries that were not treated had a 27% increase in the mean adhesion score between an initial laparoscopic procedure and second-look laparoscopy. The women in the study had undergone bilateral ovarian surgery, with ovaries randomized for application of the product or no treatment (Fertil. Steril. 2011;95:1086–90). Clearly, a laparoscopic approach to their procedures did not prevent the development of adhesions.