Standardised Models for Inducing Experimental Peritoneal Adhesions in Female Rats

Abstract

Animal models for adhesion induction are heterogeneous and often poorly described. We compare and discuss different models to induce peritoneal adhesions in a randomized, experimental in vivo animal study with 72 female Wistar rats. Six different standardized techniques for peritoneal trauma were used: brushing of peritoneal sidewall and uterine horns (group 1), brushing of parietal peritoneum only (group 2), sharp excision of parietal peritoneum closed with interrupted sutures (group 3), ischemic buttons by grasping the parietal peritoneum and ligating the base with Vicryl suture (group 4), bipolar electrocoagulation of the peritoneum (group 5), and traumatisation by electrocoagulation followed by closure of the resulting peritoneal defect using Vicryl sutures (group 6). Upon second look, there were significant differences in the adhesion incidence between the groups (P < 0.01). Analysis of the fraction of adhesions showed that groups 2 (0%) and 5 (4%) were significantly less than the other groups (P < 0.01). Furthermore, group 6 (69%) was significantly higher than group 1 (48%) (P < 0.05) and group 4 (47%) (P < 0.05). There was no difference between group 3 (60%) and group 6 (P = 0.2). From a clinical viewpoint, comparison of different electrocoagulation modes and pharmaceutical adhesion barriers is possible with standardised models.

Exogenous pulmonary surfactant prevents the development of intra‐abdominal adhesions in rats

“…In this study, a rat model of adhesion induced by gastroenterostomy was chosen based on pilot studies and a previous experimental report 15. In the model used herein, firm adhesions had been developed by the fourth post‐operative week, which was not observed in 100% of animals before this time point.…”

“…It is well known that after a gastrointestinal surgery or any intraabdominal procedure, the formation of intra-abdominal adhesions with different degrees of severity is almost inevitable because of the disruption of peritoneal integrity. In this study, a rat model of adhesion induced by gastroenterostomy was chosen based on pilot studies and a previous experimental report [15]. In the model used herein, firm adhesions had been developed by the fourth post-operative week, which was not observed in 100% of animals before this time point.…”

Intra-abdominal adhesions: Anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, and treatment

“…(40) More recently the creation of ischemic peritoneal buttons by ligating part of the peritoneum was judged superior for studying the pharmacologic effects of agents administered directly into the button ( Figure 3). (41,42) Some workers have combined linear incisions into the parietal peritoneum with excision of segment of peritoneum on the contralateral side, but no data as to where adhesions formed and to what extent one intervention differed from the other was given. (43) Involving the deeper muscular layer results in more severe adhesion formation.…”

The gap in surgical footprints : the role of connexin43 during post-surgical peritoneal adhesion formation

“…Nevertheless, a general consensus is that adhesiogenesis is aggravated when suturing is performed to repair the defects (Falk et al, 1998;Hellebrekers et al, 2000). This is likely to be contributed by secondary ischaemia and foreign body reaction caused by tight suturing (Ellis, 1971;Kraemer et al, 2014). On this note, the creation of ischaemic buttons is another popular method that also encompasses a combination of injuries from ischaemia and foreign body reaction for modeling surgical trauma during abdominal or gynaecologic surgery ( Fig.…”

“…Absorbable sutures are generally used for adhesion creation (Holmdahl, al-Jabreen, & Risberg, 1994;Rice et al, 1993). However, it is believed that the generated ischaemia due to tight suturing is main contributor for the adhesion creation instead of tissue reaction(Ellis, 1971;Holmdahl et al, 1994;Kraemer et al, 2014).…”