1999
DOI: 10.1007/bf02234137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sodium hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose-based bioresorbable membrane (seprafilm™)—Does it affect tumor implantation at abdominal wound sites?

Abstract: Sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm) does not influence GW-39 human colon cancer implantation at abdominal wound sites in this hamster model.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, we cannot confirm these observations because in our model the application of sodium hyaloronate carboxymethylcellulose membranes did not enhance tumor growth. Underwood et al [45] reinforced our results: Seprafilm neither reduced nor enhanced the tumor cell implantation of human colon cancer cells at abdominal wounds in a hamster model. The other substance investigated was taurolidine, a derivate of the amino acid taurine.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Nevertheless, we cannot confirm these observations because in our model the application of sodium hyaloronate carboxymethylcellulose membranes did not enhance tumor growth. Underwood et al [45] reinforced our results: Seprafilm neither reduced nor enhanced the tumor cell implantation of human colon cancer cells at abdominal wounds in a hamster model. The other substance investigated was taurolidine, a derivate of the amino acid taurine.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Using a nude mouse model, Burgess et al 18 found that neither Seprafilm TM bioresorbable membrane nor Sepracoat TM coating solution increased the incidence of tumour growth following intraperitoneal KM12-L4 human colon cancer cell implantation with respect to an untreated control group. Underwood et al 19 showed that Seprafilm TM had no influence on colon cancer cell implantation at abdominal laparoscopic wound sites in a hamster model. Importantly, the HT29 colon cancer cells used in the present study had a very high level of CD44 receptor expression, as revealed by cytofluorimetric analysis (data not shown), suggesting that this glycoprotein did not play a relevant role in tumour growth, under the present experimental conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both Tan et al 16 and Haverlag et al 17 reached their conclusions using very small groups of animals, and tumours were assessed only by visual inspection. Underwood et al 19 had an excessive rate of implantation of tumour cells across all groups, thus diminishing the sensitivity for detection of any subtle effects of the bioresorbable membrane. In the current study the authors tried to obviate these potential weaknesses by using an adequate sample size, and survival as a more objective endpoint.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Underwood et al [24] examined the effects of a HA membrane on GW-39 human colon cancer implantation at surgical wound and laparoscopic trocar sites in a hamster model. They concluded that HA membrane neither had a protective nor an adverse effect on tumour implantation and/or growth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results show that HA membrane itself has no major tumour-promoting effect, strongly suggesting that peritoneal trauma is a key factor in enhanced tumour growth. Only a few other experimental studies have been performed, with regard to the use of HA in an intra-abdominal tumour model [23][24][25][26] (table 4). Haverlag et al [23] studied whether the use of a 0.4% HA solution affected the adhesion of CC-531 colonic carcinoma cells.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%