Premium
Adhesion prevention in gynaecological surgery
Author(s) -
Robertson Deborah,
Lefebvre Guylaine,
Leyland Nicholas,
Wolfman Wendy,
Allaire Catherine,
Awadalla Alaa,
Best Carolyn,
Contestabile Elizabeth,
Dunn Sheila,
Heywood Mark,
Leroux Nathalie,
Potestio Frank,
Rittenberg David,
Senikas Vyta,
Soucy Renéee,
Singh Sukhbir
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.07.002
Subject(s) - medicine , guideline , randomized controlled trial , medline , cochrane library , clinical trial , systematic review , evidence based medicine , specialty , surgery , intensive care medicine , physical therapy , family medicine , alternative medicine , pathology , political science , law
Objectives To review the etiology and incidence of and associative factors in the formation of adhesions following gynaecological surgery. To review evidence for the use of available means of adhesion prevention following gynaecological surgery. Options Women undergoing pelvic surgery are at risk of developing abdominal and/or pelvic adhesive disease postoperatively. Surgical technique and commercial adhesion prevention systems may decrease the risk of postoperative adhesion formation. Outcomes The outcomes measured are the incidence of postoperative adhesions, complications related to the formation of adhesions, and further intervention relative to adhesive disease. Evidence Medline, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched for articles published in English from 1990 to March 2009, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and meta‐analyses specifically addressing postoperative adhesions, adhesion prevention, and adhesive barriers. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to March 2009. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment‐related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. Values The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.