Open Access

Tissue adhesion after surgical interventions (Review)

  • Authors:
    • Malin C.K. Sturm
    • Alexander Abazid
    • Matthias B. Stope
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: March 17, 2025     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2025.12847
  • Article Number: 97
  • Copyright: © Sturm et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY_NC 4.0].

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Tissue adhesion after surgical procedures is a common postoperative complication that affects a significant number of patients across all surgical disciplines. In pelvic surgical procedures, second‑look surgeries have revealed adhesions in more than half of all patients weeks to several months after surgery​. Adhesions can be asymptomatic, but they can also cause a wide range of complications, such as severe pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, ileus and reproductive dysfunction​. Undetected adhesions that lead to problems in subsequent surgical interventions are also of high clinical importance. Lysis of these adhesions before the actual surgery leads to loss of time and possible additional complications, such as trocar injuries in laparoscopies or inadvertent enterotomies during adhesiolysis, during the originally planned intervention. The health care associated with adhesion‑related problems are significant. Because of the widely varying manifestations of symptoms, the already concerning figure of patients with significant adhesions is likely to increase. Outpatient healthcare expenditures are further increased because of undetected adhesions. Adhesions therefore represent a major surgical and health economic problem; however, yet there are currently few options for prophylaxis and treatment.

1. Introduction

One of the most common complications associated with the peritoneum is the formation of abdominal adhesions after surgery. Adhesions are bands of connective tissue that form between organs or between organs and the abdominal wall, typically in response to inflammation or (surgical) trauma. Such adhesions can remain symptom-free for life, but they can lead to organ dysfunction. These include restricted movement, pain, intestinal obstruction or infertility. The formation of adhesions is a significant problem after abdominal operations such as caesarean sections, appendectomies or hysterectomies.

As aforementioned, adhesions are significant regarding frequent issues faced in many surgical disciplines. They are associated with chronic pelvic pain, infertility, and intestinal obstruction, which lead to significant clinical challenges, as noted across multiple studies (1,2). In 2004, one in 20 gastrointestinal procedures was primarily indicated for adhesion lysis according to US Health System analyses. This has resulted in 900,000 days of hospitalization as well as annual adhesion-related costs of $2.3 billion (3).

The subsequent problems caused by adhesions have not diminished (4,5). Capmas et al (6) describe that adhesions are widespread in abdomino-pelvic surgery, particularly in gynecological and colorectal procedures. The study was conducted in France and demonstrated costs for hospitalization and surgery due to adhesions of approximately €4 million in 2019. In this time period, more than 25.000 surgeries were performed in France with either the primary or secondary goal of adhesiolysis. The adhesion-dependent economic burden on the healthcare system arises primarily from the direct costs of readmissions and repeat operations (6). The costs associated with loss of productivity and long-term patient morbidity are also considerable. However, these indirect costs are usually not even considered, but would significantly increase the impact (5). Moreover, the process of adhesiolysis itself was a part of one in three laparoscopic surgeries, as detailed per diagnosis-related group codings. A 2023 systematic review concerning the health care costs of adhesion-related small bowel obstruction in different countries found national costs reaching up to $1.77 billion (7). The literature review included 7 clinical trials conducted worldwide between 1999 and 2016. The mean total cost of the 39,573 patients was $1,814-$2,568 with medical treatment vs. $4,914-$25,321 in the surgical treatment group. The mean length of stay was 3.0-7.0 days for conservative treatment and 8.0-16.3 days for surgical treatment. On average, the length of stay for patients who underwent surgery was about three times longer than for patients who received conservative treatment, which explains the significantly higher treatment costs.

2. Adhesion types and diagnostics

Adhesions are attachments of tissue areas, which are not physiologically connected to each other. They consist of fibrous bands of scar tissue and thus connect areas of tissue or organs that were originally not connected to each other. Adhesions often arise as a result of surgery, inflammation or trauma. As such, they are part of the body's natural healing process, but can form abnormal connections that lead to medical complications (8,9). In surgical context, one usually refers to adhesions involving abdominal and pelvic organs as well as the peritoneum.

Fig. 1 shows that adhesions can form between almost any intra-abdominal surface, such as the intestines or the greater omentum. These surfaces are then connected to either each other or the abdominal wall via such adhesions. Adhesions are generally classified into three main types according to their location, structure and functional effect.

One type of adhesion may occur during embryonic organogenesis. This form of adhesion is congenital and is the result of abnormal embryonic development. These adhesions usually involve the gastrointestinal tract, e.g. the persistence of a congenital band causing small bowel obstruction. However, they tend to be more isolated and less extensive than acquired adhesions. This happens comparatively rarely and is usually only incidentally diagnosed. In most cases, such adhesions remain asymptomatic and do not require therapy (8).

Adhesions can also be formed post-inflammatorily as a consequence of acute or chronic underlying diseases. These adhesions arise as a reaction to pathological processes such as infections, endometriosis or chronic inflammation. Such pathological adhesions tend to form dense and highly vascularized fibrous bands. The clinical presentation is often asymptomatic or mild in these cases. However, they can also occur with certain diseases such as pelvic inflammatory disease or intra-abdominal sepsis. In the clinical presentation, this can lead to chronic pelvic pain, infertility and complications during surgical interventions (9,10). A post-mortem study revealed adhesions in 28% of all cases in probands who had never undergone surgery (9). Etiologically, such adhesions can be attributed to intra-abdominal inflammatory processes (such as peritonitis, Crohn's disease, endometriosis, and radiotherapy-induced inflammation) (2,10).

The largest adhesion group consists of clinically significant postoperative adhesions (Fig. 1). Here, the peritoneum has been damaged, which is estimated to occur in 70-100% of patients (11,12). These adhesions are the result of surgical trauma and are by a wide margin the most common adhesions. The formation of such acquired adhesions is a response to injury and subsequent inflammation of the peritoneum. The adhesions can vary greatly in density and extent and range from very fine to extremely strong and dense fibrous bands (10,12).

Although adhesions can also be completely asymptomatic, all three main types can also lead to a variety of complications. These range from the mildest symptoms to very serious complications. For one thing, unclear symptoms such as chronic abdominal or pelvic pain can occur. In many cases, however, there are also defined clinical manifestations such as inflammatory diseases or functional limitations of the affected organs, e.g. peritonitis, intestinal obstruction or infertility (13). As a diagnosis of adhesions is nearly impossible without directly seeing them, adhesions are mostly detected incidentally during surgical procedures. The patient's medical history may provide indications. When the displaceability of organs and organ areas in relation to each other is restricted, further evidence can sometimes be found with the use of imaging techniques.

Modern imaging techniques enable very accurate clarification of anatomical abnormalities. The use of a cine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device makes it possible to analyze the abdominal cavity with a high image sequence. It was seen that adhesions could be detected with a sensitivity of 86.0% and a specificity of 80.0% (14). In addition, the non-invasive procedure also made it possible to assess the localization and extent of adhesions as well as the mobility of affected organs. Another advantage of MRI is that patients are not exposed to ionizing radiation. However, the method has its limitations with extremely thin adhesion bands and in areas where only very low organ dynamics are naturally present. However, MRI-based mapping of adhesions facilitates better planning of a surgical procedure and reduces potential surgical risks and thus also postoperative complications. Future advances in suitable imaging techniques could significantly improve the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of adhesions. However, routine adhesion diagnostics using such devices is hampered by the high technical and financial requirements.

3. Peritoneum

The peritoneum plays a crucial pathophysiological role in the development of adhesions. Intra-abdominal adhesions are mostly adhesions of the peritoneum itself, resulting from damage during the surgical procedure. The larger the surface of an organ covered by peritoneum and the denser the intra-abdominal position of each organ in relation to each other, the higher the risk of adhesions. This risk is particularly high during ovarian interventions, which achieve adhesion rates of 90% in gynecologic adnexal surgery (15,16).

The peritoneal membrane has two sheets that line the peritoneal cavity in humans. The parietal sheet covers the abdominal wall from the inside, while the visceral sheet envelops the abdominal organs located intraperitoneally (17). The peritoneum is derived from the mesoderm and develops from the lateral squamous mesoderm during early embryogenesis. During embryogenesis, the peritoneum forms a continuous membrane that lines the abdominal cavity and covers most of the visceral organs. It later develops into the abdominal cavity, which allows the abdominal organs to move. Structurally, the peritoneum can be divided into two layers (18). Histologically, the peritoneum possesses an outer single-layered mesothelial cell layer that carries microvilli. In humans, this brush border increases the secretory surface area by approximately 1.8 m² (19). Under the mesothelium, there is a basement membrane and further below there is a connective tissue layer with nerves, blood, and lymph vessels (20).

The primary functions of the peritoneum include regulation of the fluid balance within the abdominal cavity, maintaining organ mobility within the abdominal cavity and recruitment and modulation of immune cell actions and. Intra-abdominal homeostasis is sustained by secreted or resorbed peritoneal fluid (19,20). This allows the mesothelial cells to provide 50-75 ml of peritoneal fluid on the surface, which enables low-friction displacement of the intraperitoneal organs (21). Finally, the peritoneum functions as an immunologically active tissue. The peritoneal mesothelial cells respond to infections or injuries and can release cytokines and other inflammatory mediators. Cell-free areas of the stroma contain fat-associated lymphoid clusters (macula lactea) with lymph node-like functions (22,23). Neutrophilic granulocytes and various lymphocyte types are located here for local immune defense against infection and inflammation (24,25).

The adhesion formation is one of the most common complications associated with the peritoneum, but there are also other diseases of the peritoneum that can significantly restrict its function. Peritonitis is an inflammation of the peritoneum and can occur after infections, trauma or surgical interventions in the abdominal cavity. The increased secretion of immunomodulators leads to an increase in vascular permeability. This intensifies local inflammatory effects and disrupts peritoneal fluid homeostasis (18,20). Furthermore, fibrotic and sclerotic processes can harden the peritoneum and thus impair its functionality (19). Finally, the peritoneum is also frequently affected by abdominal cancers. Peritoneal carcinomas can occur in particular in stomach, colon and ovarian cancer. Malignant cells penetrate the peritoneal mucosa, causing inflammation and worsening the oncological prognosis (15,19).

4. Cell biology of adhesion tissue formation

As in wound healing, the pathophysiological processes involved in adhesion formation include exudation, resorption, and repair. At the cell biological level, complex interactions between mesothelial cells and the extracellular matrix (ECM) are involved, which are orchestrated by different signaling pathways (26). Following abdominal surgery, these biological events also take place leading to the repair of the damaged tissue (Fig. 2).

The reparative processes begin with activation of the fibrin system, accompanied by local inflammation. As tissue repair progresses, hypoxia occurs and redox-regulated signaling and effector cascades are stimulated in the affected tissue. Revascularization occurs in the late phase of repair. Dysregulation in these complex and finely orchestrated mechanisms, e.g. imbalances of fibrin synthesis and degradation, leads to abnormalities in tissue formation and ultimately to tissue adhesions (27,28).

The formation of tissue adhesions begins with the activation of the coagulation cascade. Injury to the mesothelial layer leads to the release of permeability-increasing substances, such as histamine or different cytokines and increases vascular permeability (29). Moreover, activation of the coagulation cascade occurs in areas of trauma. In the extrinsic pathway, tissue factor (tissue thromboplastin, factor III) localized in the subendothelial tissue activates factor VII in the blood. In parallel, the intrinsic pathway is stimulated. Collagen of the endothelium, exposed due to trauma, leads to contact activation of additional coagulation factors (factor XIII, factor IX, factor XI, factor XII). Both pathways lead to the activation of factor V and factor X, and subsequently to proteolytic cleavage of fibrinogen to fibrin by the enzyme thrombin. Polymerization and cross-linking of the fibrin monomers results in building a fibrin matrix (30,31).

Inflammatory reactions also play an important role in adhesion formation. Following injury, immune cells infiltrate the site and release cytokines and growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), which promote fibrosis and activate mesothelial cells. Activation of inflammatory pathways also induces the expression of adhesion molecules on the surface of mesothelial cells, which facilitates interaction with ECM components and neighboring cells (30,32).

Peritoneal mesothelial cells undergo a so-called mesothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (MMT). During this process, these cells largely lose their epithelial properties and take on a fibroblastic or myofibroblastic phenotype (33). MMT leads to an increased release of ECM components such as collagen and fibronectin. The pivotal regulator of MMT is TGFβ1 (34,35). As a result, fibrous components form, which can be regarded as the initial adhesion tissue.

During the process, the ECM continues to be extensively modified. Most commonly, collagen, fibronectin and hyaluronic acid are upregulated and integrated into the ECM in excess at injury sites. This remodeling is primarily mediated by matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) and their regulators Tissue Inhibitors of MMP (TIMP). After MMT, the fibroblasts and myofibroblasts secrete alpha-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), a marker for myofibroblastic differentiation. Furthermore, the cells produce additional ECM proteins, which increases the mechanical stiffness of the adherent tissue. (32).

The formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) in the adherent tissue is another important characteristic of adhesion formation. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and signaling molecules such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are essential factors in angiogenic initiation and progression (34,35). The adhesion becomes irreversible when the adhesion tissue is vascularized (36).

As in wound healing, redox processes are seemingly involved in adhesion formation. ROS, such as hydroxyl radical, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), superoxide anion, and singlet oxygen, serve as cofactors for cellular proteins and as second messengers. Nitric oxide controls ECM production and is released from adhesion-associated fibroblasts (37). H2O2 is an important signaling molecule for the activation of VEGF-dependent vascularization processes (38). Furthermore, it controls various processes regarding pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cell responses including immunomodulation. Immune cells, such as monocytes and macrophages, migrate into the tissue and further contribute to an adhesive microenvironment through immune modulatory protein factor secretion (18,20,39).

Thus, a strategy of using specific therapeutics in order to suppress ROS levels seems a promising way to intervene in the process of adhesion formation. Several recent publications regarding chronic wound healing discuss the use of anti-oxidant-incorporating hydrogels for wound management (40,41). Some of the incorporated anti-oxidant substances include gallic acid-conjugated gelatin, Lignin, and Pseurotin A (42-44).

5. Cellular misregulations leading to adhesion formation

There are two auto-regulated processes in which dysregulation may primarily occur during the formation of adhesive tissue. These are fibrinogenesis/fibrinolysis and ECM synthesis/degradation (30). A disturbed balance of synthesis and degradation of the fibrin matrix during coagulation is primarily responsible for adhesion formation. The extent of the coagulation pathway activation correlates with the degree of inflammation in the area of trauma.

The mesothelial cells making up the outermost layer of the peritoneum express cell adhesion-molecules (CAM), e.g. intercellular adhesion molecule 1 or vascular cell adhesion molecule 1. CAM, cytokines and growth factors (TGF-β, VEGF) stimulate the invasion of granulocytes and lymphocytes as part of the pathogenic process (45). Important cytokines involved in adhesion formation include interleukin 1 (IL-1), IL-6 and TNF-α (46). Further insight may be provided by modulating these cytokines using molecular strategies such as small molecules in future experiments may. Cytokine levels also correspond to the local inflammation status and reflect the risk of adhesion formation. Cytokine monitoring after surgical interventions would therefore potentially also be a biomarker for adhesion formation.

VEGF, which induces angiogenesis, is important in adhesion formation as vascularization precludes reversal of adhesions. VEGF inhibitors (i.e. humanized monoclonal antibodies against VEGF such as Bevacizumab) are especially used in the treatment of oncologic diseases. VEGF inhibitors could also inhibit the proliferation of adhesive tissue and, in particular, reduce the formation of adhesion-associated blood vessels. Their use could therefore also be promising in adhesion prevention. (47).

On the other hand, complications have also been described following the use of VEGF inhibitors. In a study of cancer patients receiving bevacizumab, wound healing complications were observed (48). The more closely a surgical incision was made after bevacizumab administration, the greater the wound healing complications. Since VEGF contributes significantly to growth and vascularization, it is an important factor in wound healing. This is in contrast to its use as an adhesion inhibitor, as this application is intended to suppress the adhesion-associated growth and wound healing processes. These side effects significantly limit VEGF blockade for adhesion prophylaxis and must be investigated further.

Fibrinogenesis is regulated by fibrinolysis, in which fibrin is enzymatically digested. Sufficient degradation of fibrin polymers usually leads to healing of the traumatized peritoneal area. Plasmin, a serine protease formed from the enzymatically inactive precursor plasminogen, is responsible for this degradation (49). During surgery, the fibrinolytic capacity of the peritoneum decreases significantly. The enzymatic activation of plasmin occurs locally in the peritoneum mainly induced by tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) and by urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) (36). Fibrin levels induce the activity of tPA/uPA, while plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI) inhibits it (31,49,50). PAI is secreted by both adhesive tissue cells and migratory immune cells (36). A study of tissue expression of PAI and tPA in the peritoneum showed that in patients with severe adhesions, synthesis of tPA was significantly decreased while synthesis of PAI significantly increased. The resulting reduced fibrinolytic capacity represented a risk factor for the development of adhesions (50,51).

Another critical step in adhesion formation is the synthesis of ECM components. Here, too, there is a balance between ECM synthesis by adhesive myofibroblasts and ECM degradation by extracellular MMP. MMP are in turn inhibited by the MMP inhibitors TIMP in order to prevent an excessive cell response. As with the fibrin-plasmin system, a pathological imbalance of the ECM-MMP-TIMP system leads to impaired wound healing and subsequently to an increased risk of adhesion tissue formation (52,53). Elevated PAI-1 levels in the peritoneum can impair fibrinolysis and promote adhesion formation (50). Accordingly, increased tPA levels have been shown to correlate with a lower risk of adhesion, whereas increased PAI-1 levels correlate with an increased risk of adhesion (51). Another regulator of MMP enzyme activity is the neurokinin receptor-1 (NKR-1). By antagonizing NKR-1, MMP activity could be increased and thus adhesion formation was reduced (53).

6. Adhesion prophylaxis

One has to differentiate between surgical methods and the use of so-called barrier methods when discussing strategies for minimizing adhesion formation.

As far as suitable surgical procedures are concerned, the goal is an option with minimal intraoperative trauma and thorough hemostasis (54). Thus, minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopy, seems to have several advantages over laparotomy (55,56).

There are several factors that determine the risk of adhesion formation during laparoscopy. One of these factors is the intraoperative hypoxia caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation. In a mouse model, hypoxia was correlated with an upregulation of the hypoxia-induced factor 1a (HIF-1a) and HIF-1b (57). Best results with the intention to minimize this risk could be achieved with a CO2 insufflation with a concentration of 3% added oxygen (58).

Another factor is the peritoneal insufflation pressure during laparoscopic surgery. Animal studies demonstrated more severe adhesions when higher pressures (6, 9, 12 mmHg) were applied (59). In postoperative analyses, more, larger and more severe adhesions were observed with increasing pressures. The results suggest that higher insufflation pressures may increase both ischemia and trauma to the peritoneum, thus raising the risk of adhesion formation.

Nevertheless, laparoscopic techniques can in principle be used to treat adhesions. The minimally invasive nature causes less tissue trauma and thus reduces the risk of new adhesive tissue formation (60). However, in very complex situations with dense or extensive adhesions, it can be very challenging. It may then be necessary to switch to open surgery for technical reasons. Based on the literature data, the authors assume that laparoscopic procedures offer a small but significant advantage in terms of adhesion prevention.

Several studies have investigated the molecular mechanisms of adhesion formation and gained insights into the possible prophylactic application of fibrinolytics (61). Thus, pharmacological activation of plasmin appears to be a potentially effective application to reduce adhesion. The data were confirmed with recombinant tPA, streptokinase-streptodornase and pepsin/trypsin in clinical studies. Despite promising adhesion-reducing results, however, there are only few clinical data available (61-64). One reason may be that protein/enzyme preparations are expensive to produce and sensitive in clinical use.

Barrier methods are currently the most promising methods for preventing adhesions. They act as spacers between peritoneal wound surfaces and thus reduce the formation of fibrin bridges (65). There is currently a lack of sufficient and systematic clinical evidence on adhesion prophylaxis to adequately assess the effectiveness of the various procedures. Therefore, some medical societies do not yet provide a clear recommendation for the use of adhesion prophylaxis. A consensus article from 2022 explicitly emphasizes that more and coordinated research activities on adhesion prophylaxis should be encouraged (65). Standardized examination procedures (study design) and evaluation criteria (e.g. second-look laparoscopy) are also important instruments.

Three barrier methods have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: ‘Interceed’, ‘Seprafilm’ and ‘Adept’. The medical product ‘Adept’ consists of a 4% icodextrin-solution. The resorption of this solution after surgery takes more than 96 h, as the fluid cannot be resorbed directly, but must be removed from the intraperitoneal cavity via the lymphatic system (54,66,67). In comparison, Ringer's solution is resorbed in less than 24 h and thus serves as a poor spacer between individual peritoneal layers (68). The barrier methods called ‘Interceed’ and ‘Seprafilm’ are bioresorbable membranes, which are applied intraoperatively, and have a similar purpose and way of functioning as ‘Adept.’

There are also gelatinous barrier methods, e.g., ‘SprayGel,’ which is made of polyethylene glycol (54). These can be applied during laparotomy and endoscopically. Finally, the relatively novel barrier method called ‘4DryField’ is applied in the form of a powder and effects both adhesion formation and hemostasis (69,70). Some studies have also failed to demonstrate sufficient efficacy of anti-adhesion candidates. For example, ibuprofen, dexamethasone and heparin exhibited no prophylactic effects with regard to the formation of adhesions.

Another innovative method for adhesion prophylaxis is the use of non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP), also known as cold atmospheric plasma. NIPP treatment is on the threshold between preclinical investigations including clinical trials and routine use in everyday clinical practice, e.g. in tissue repair and wound management (71,72). The main biomedical effect factors are ROS including free oxygen radicals. These locally modulate the immunological environment of the tissue area and can therefore reduce postoperative adhesions (73-76). NIPP inhibits both cell growth and cell-cell contacts of proadhesive peritoneal fibroblasts (77). Such anti-adhesive effects have already been described in connection with the treatment of keloid-forming fibroblasts (78). This treatment does not necessarily require the direct intraoperative use of a NIPP device, but it is also possible to apply physiologic saline solution that has itself been treated with NIPP. Such indirect treatment with NIPP has been reported to be successful in various in vitro cell models (79,80). Therefore, postoperative irrigation of the abdominal cavity with NIPP-treated physiologic saline could be a promising concept for adhesion prophylaxis.

7. Adhesion therapy

The primary treatment for adhesions is adhesiolysis, a surgical procedure to remove or separate the adhesions. This procedure, like any surgical intervention, carries risks, including the possibility of recurrence of adhesions. However, clinical studies on non-invasive, pharmacological and physiotherapeutic procedures have not yet revealed any significant effects in adhesion patients (81-83).

The results of clinical studies show that laparoscopic adhesiolysis significantly reduces the risk of morbidity, mortality and postoperative infections. Furthermore, serious complications and incisional complications are significantly reduced. These clinical data suggest that laparoscopic adhesiolysis, when feasible, may offer better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery (84,85). Due to their minimally invasive nature, laparoscopic procedures are considered the adhesiolysis method of choice (60).

However, surgical adhesiolysis does not always lead to a reduction in adhesion-related symptoms. In the case of adhesion-associated chronic abdominal pain, adhesiolysis did not lead to any pain relief in 33% of patients (10). In another clinical study, no improvement in pain was observed at all (86). A meta-analysis showed initial pain relief in about two-thirds of laparoscopically treated adhesion patients. However, the results did not allow any conclusions to be drawn about long-term effects (87). Abdominal pain in particular is more difficult to correlate with specific clinical pathophysiology.

In reproductive medicine, surgical adhesiolysis is evaluated much more positively. In the case of diagnosed adhesion-related infertility, surgical adhesiolysis leads to a postoperative one-year pregnancy rate of 61%. In patients with severe adhesions, however, this rate drops to In the case of diagnosed adhesion-related infertility, surgical adhesiolysis leads to a postoperative one-year pregnancy rate of 61%. In patients with severe adhesions, however, this rate drops to 20% (88).

The use of robot-assisted surgery, e.g. with the da Vinci robotic surgery system, to combat adhesions is particularly interesting with regard to innovative new procedures in surgery (89). In gynecological patients with extensive adhesions, robotic surgery showed more favorable results compared to laparoscopy, both in terms of operative time and intraoperative blood loss (90). In addition, literature analysis showed that the rate of conversion from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery due to complicated adhesions is lower when a robotic approach is used (91).

However, it should be borne in mind that curative surgical adhesion therapy carries the risk of causing new adhesions. As with adhesion prophylaxis, this underlines the unsatisfactory situation with regard to therapeutic options for tissue adhesions.

8. Conclusion

The formation of tissue adhesions is a major medical and health economic problem. Adhesions can remain asymptomatic, but they can also cause unpleasant to severe symptoms such as abdominal pain, obstruction and sterility. Furthermore, the anatomical consequences of adhesions often lead to longer and additional surgical interventions as well as longer postoperative hospital stays. This ultimately increases the healthcare costs of the treatment (92-94).

Adhesions are often diagnosed by chance during the originally planned operation. It would be possible to identify areas of adhesion prior to surgery using imaging techniques such as MRI. This can even be done with relatively good accuracy, so that such findings could be incorporated into surgical planning. However, imaging is complex and expensive and has not yet been able to establish itself in routine practice. Adhesion-minimizing prophylactic procedures are only available to a limited extent. The only effective procedures are barrier methods. These involve introducing agents into the operated area that delay contact between traumatized tissue areas in the abdominal cavity for as long as possible and thus reduce the adhesion rate. Innovative molecular approaches relate to fibrin turnover. This can be regulated by means of fibrin-associated factors, which reduces fibrin synthesis and subsequent adhesion events. There is also initial data on using physical plasma to affect the ROS biology of the wound area, which can also inhibit adhesive processes. However, both approaches have not yet been integrated into everyday clinical practice. The treatment of identified adhesions is currently only possible surgically. Attempts with pharmacological agents have failed as ineffective. However, surgical interventions carry the risk of renewed adhesions. This can be countered to a certain extent by using minimally invasive procedures. Minimizing traumatological influences also reduces the formation of new adhesions. It has also been shown that robotic-assisted surgery can have positive and anti-adhesive effects.

As the clinical data situation is still very heterogeneous overall and there is a lack of comprehensive systematic clinical studies, there are only a few clear and guideline-based recommendations for diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of adhesions. The medical associations and health and science policy are called upon to take action here. In terms of the medical treatment of such tissue defects, a clear awareness of the dangers but also of the medical care options must be created. In addition, it is essential in the current situation that the political framework conditions are created that place the problem of adhesions more at the center of structured research approaches in accordance with its enormous medical and health economic significance. There are some promising approaches for the prophylaxis and treatment of adhesions, but there is still a long way to go before they can be used clinically.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Funding: No funding was received.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

MCKS, AA and MBS were responsible for conceptualization. AA and MCKS provided the resources for the figures included. MCKS prepared the original draft. MCKS, AA and MBS reviewed and edited the manuscript. MBS supervised the project. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data authentication is not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for the use of the images in Fig. 1.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

diZerega GS: Contemporary adhesion prevention. Fertil Steril. 61:219–235. 1994.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

2 

Brüggmann D, Tchartchian G, Wallwiener M, Münstedt K, Tinneberg HR and Hackethal A: Intra-abdominal adhesions: Definition, origin, significance in surgical practice, and treatment options. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 107:769–775. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

3 

Sikirica V, Bapat B, Candrilli SD, Davis KL, Wilson M and Johns A: The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynecological adhesiolysis in the US. BMC Surg. 11(13)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

4 

Cheong Y, Sadek K, Watson A, Metwally M and Li TC: Adhesion reduction agents in gynaecological procedures: can NHS aff ord it? An economic cost efficiency analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 31:631–635. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

5 

Davey AK and Maher PJ: Surgical adhesions: A timely update, a great challenge for the future. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 14:15–22. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Capmas P, Payen F, Lemaire A and Fernandez H: Adhesions in abdomino-pelvic surgeries: A real economic impact? PLoS One. 17(e0276810)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

7 

Garoufalia Z, Gefen R, Emile SH, Zhou P, Silva-Alvarenga E and Wexner SD: Financial and inpatient burden of adhesion-related small bowel obstruction: A systematic review of the literature. Am Surg. 89:2693–2700. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

8 

Yang KH, Lee TB, Lee SH, Kim SH, Cho YH and Kim HY: Congenital adhesion band causing small bowel obstruction: What's the difference in various age groups, pediatric and adult patients? BMC Surg. 16(79)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

9 

Weibel MA and Majno G: Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. A postmortem study. Am J Surg. 126:345–353. 1973.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

10 

Tabibian N, Swehli E, Boyd A, Umbreen A and Tabibian JH: Abdominal adhesions: A practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 15:9–13. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

11 

Leung TT, Dixon E, Gill M, Mador BD, Moulton KM, Kaplan GG and MacLean AR: Bowel obstruction following appendectomy: What is the true incidence? Ann Surg. 250:51–53. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

12 

Nunobe S, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Tokunaga M, Ohyama S, Seto Y and Yamaguchi T: Previous laparotomy is not a contraindication to laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. World J Surg. 32:1466–1472. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

13 

Robb WB and Mariette C: Strategies in the prevention of the formation of postoperative adhesions in digestive surgery; a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 57:1228–1240. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

14 

Buhmann-Kirchhoff S, Lang R, Kirchhoff C, Steitz HO, Jauch KW, Reiser M and Lienemann A: Functional cine MR imaging for the detection and mapping of intraabdominal adhesions: Method and surgical correlation. Eur Radiol. 18:1215–1223. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

15 

Pittaway DE, Daniell JF and Maxson WS: Ovarian surgery in an infertility patient as an indication for a short-interval second-look laparoscopy: A preliminary study. Fertil Steril. 44:611–614. 1985.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

16 

Diamond MP, Pellicer A, Boyers SP and DeCherney AH: The effect of periovarian adhesions on follicular development in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 49:100–103. 1988.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

17 

Blackburn SC and Stanton MP: Anatomy and physiology of the peritoneum. Semin Pediatr Surg. 23:326–330. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

18 

Sompayrac SW, Mindelzun RE, Silverman PM and Sze R: The greater omentum. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 168:683–687. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

19 

Kastelein AW, Vos LMC, de Jong KH, van Baal JOAM, Nieuwland R, van Noorden CJF, Roovers JWR and Lok CAR: Embryology, anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of the peritoneum and the peritoneal vasculature. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 92:27–36. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Pfister F, Büttner-Herold M, Kitsche B, Bulian DR, Kielstein JT, Wanninger R, Eden G, Alscher D, Nebel M, Schwenger V and Amann K: Standardized histomorphological processing of peritoneal biopsies as part of the German Peritoneal Biopsy Registry (GRIP, German registry in PD). Pathologe. 41:634–642. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In German).

21 

Rudralingam V, Footitt C and Layton B: Ascites matters. Ultrasound. 25:69–79. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Doherty NS, Griffiths RJ, Hakkinen JP, Scampoli DN and Milici AJ: Post-capillary venules in the ‘milky spots’ of the greater omentum are the major site of plasma protein and leukocyte extravasation in rodent models of peritonitis. Inflamm Res. 44:169–177. 1995.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

23 

Jackson-Jones LH and Bénézech C: FALC stromal cells define a unique immunological niche for the surveillance of serous cavities. Curr Opin Immunol. 64:42–49. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

24 

Jackson-Jones LH, Smith P, Portman JR, Magalhaes MS, Mylonas KJ, Vermeren MM, Nixon M, Henderson BEP, Dobie R, Vermeren S, et al: Stromal cells covering omental fat-associated lymphoid clusters trigger formation of neutrophil aggregates to capture peritoneal contaminants. Immunity. 52:700–715.e6. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

25 

Cruz-Migoni S and Caamaño J: Fat-associated lymphoid clusters in inflammation and immunity. Front Immunol. 7(612)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

26 

Brochhausen C, Schmitt VH, Planck CN, Rajab TK, Hollemann D, Tapprich C, Krämer B, Wallwiener C, Hierlemann H, Zehbe R, et al: Current strategies and future perspectives for intraperitoneal adhesion prevention. J Gastrointest Surg. 16:1256–1274. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

27 

Sen CK and Roy S: Redox signals in wound healing. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1780:1348–1361. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

28 

Koninckx PR, Gomel V, Ussia A and Adamyan L: Role of the peritoneal cavity in the prevention of postoperative adhesions, pain, and fatigue. Fertil Steril. 106:998–1010. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

29 

Buţureanu SA and Buţureanu TA: Pathophysiology of adhesions. Chirurgia (Bucur). 109:293–298. 2014.

30 

Capella-Monsonís H, Kearns S, Kelly J and Zeugolis DI: Battling adhesions: From understanding to prevention. BMC Biomed Eng. 1(5)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

31 

Maciver AH, McCall M and James Shapiro AM: Intra-abdominal adhesions: Cellular mechanisms and strategies for prevention. Int J Surg. 9:589–594. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

32 

Smith SA, Travers RJ and Morrissey JH: How it all starts: Initiation of the clotting cascade. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 50:326–336. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

33 

Mutsaers SE, Prêle CMA, Pengelly S and Herrick SE: Mesothelial cells and peritoneal homeostasis. Fertil Steril. 106:1018–1024. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

34 

Li Y, Wang J and Asahina K: Mesothelial cells give rise to hepatic stellate cells and myofibroblasts via mesothelial-mesenchymal transition in liver injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 110:2324–2329. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

35 

Yang AH, Chen JY and Lin JK: Myofibroblastic conversion of mesothelial cells. Kidney Int. 63:1530–1539. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

36 

Arung W, Meurisse M and Detry O: Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol. 17:4545–4553. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

37 

Amadeu TP and Costa AM: Nitric oxide synthesis inhibition alters rat cutaneous wound healing. J Cutan Pathol. 33:465–473. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

38 

Zhou Q, Liu LZ, Fu B, Hu X, Shi X, Fang J and Jiang BH: Reactive oxygen species regulate insulin-induced VEGF and HIF-1alpha expression through the activation of p70S6K1 in human prostate cancer cells. Carcinogenesis. 28:28–37. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

39 

De Oliveira-Marques V, Cyrne L, Marinho HS and Antunes F: A quantitative study of NF-kappaB activation by H2O2: Relevance in inflammation and synergy with TNF-alpha. J Immunol. 178:3893–3902. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

40 

Kang JI and Park KM: Advances in gelatin-based hydrogels for wound management. J Mater Chem B. 9:1503–1520. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

41 

Ou Q, Zhang S, Fu C, Yu L, Xin P, Gu Z, Cao Z, Wu J and Wang Y: More natural more better: triple natural anti-oxidant puerarin/ferulic acid/polydopamine incorporated hydrogel for wound healing. J Nanobiotechnology. 19(237)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

42 

Thi PL, Lee Y, Tran DL, Thi TTH, Kang JI, Park KM and Park KD: In situ forming and reactive oxygen species-scavenging gelatin hydrogels for enhancing wound healing efficacy. Acta Biomater. 103:142–152. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

43 

Kim B, Kim Y, Lee Y, Oh J, Jung Y, Koh WG and Chung JJ: Reactive oxygen species suppressive kraft lignin-gelatin antioxidant hydrogels for chronic wound repair. Macromol Biosci. 22(e2200234)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

44 

Chen K, Qiu P, Yuan Y, Zheng L, He J, Wang C, Guo Q, Kenny J, Liu Q, Zhao J, et al: Pseurotin A inhibits osteoclastogenesis and prevents ovariectomized-induced bone loss by suppressing reactive oxygen species. Theranostics. 9:1634–1650. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

45 

Brochhausen C, Schmitt VH, Rajab TK, Planck CN, Krämer B, Wallwiener M, Hierlemann H and Kirkpatrick CJ: Intraperitoneal adhesions-an ongoing challenge between biomedical engineering and the life sciences. J Biomed Mater Res A. 98:143–156. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

46 

Cheong YC, Laird SM, Shelton JB, Ledger WL, Li TC and Cooke ID: The correlation of adhesions and peritoneal fluid cytokine concentrations: A pilot study. Hum Reprod. 17:1039–1045. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

47 

Cahill RA and Redmond HP: Cytokine orchestration in post-operative peritoneal adhesion formation. World J Gastroenterol. 14:4861–4866. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

48 

Scappaticci FA, Fehrenbacher L, Cartwright T, Hainsworth JD, Heim W, Berlin J, Kabbinavar F, Novotny W, Sarkar S and Hurwitz H: Surgical wound healing complications in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. J Surg Oncol. 91:173–180. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

49 

Holmdahl L, Eriksson E, Al-Jabreen M and Risberg B: Fibrinolysis in human peritoneum during operation. Surgery. 119:701–705. 1996.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

50 

Andreasen PA, Georg B, Lund LR, Riccio A and Stacey SN: Plasminogen activator inhibitors: Hormonally regulated serpins. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 68:1–19. 1990.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

51 

Ivarsson ML, Bergström M, Eriksson E, Risberg B and Holmdahl L: Tissue markers as predictors of postoperative adhesions. Br J Surg. 85:1549–1554. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

52 

Bourboulia D and Stetler-Stevenson WG: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs): Positive and negative regulators in tumor cell adhesion. Semin Cancer Biol. 20:161–168. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

53 

Cohen PA, Gower AC, Stucchi AF, Leeman SE, Becker JM and Reed KL: A neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist that reduces intraabdominal adhesion formation increases peritoneal matrix metalloproteinase activity. Wound Repair Regen. 15:800–808. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

54 

Diamond MP, Wexner SD, diZereg GS, Korell M, Zmora O, Van Goor H and Kamar M: Adhesion prevention and reduction: current status and future recommendations of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Innov. 17:183–188. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

55 

Buunen M, Gholghesaei M, Veldkamp R, Meijer DW, Bonjer HJ and Bouvy ND: Stress response to laparoscopic surgery: A review. Surg Endosc. 18:1022–1028. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

56 

Tazeoğlu D, Benli S, Tikici D, Esmer AC and Dirlik MM: Can minimally invasive surgical techniques reduce the incidence of postoperative adhesions? Pol Przegl Chir. 94:23–30. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

57 

Molinas CR, Campo R, Elkelani OA, Binda MM, Carmeliet P and Koninckx PR: Role of hypoxia inducible factors 1alpha and 2alpha in basal adhesion formation and in carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum-enhanced adhesion formation after laparoscopic surgery in transgenic mice. Fertil Steril. 80 (Suppl 2):S795–S802. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

58 

Elkelani OA, Binda MM, Molinas CR and Koninckx PR: Effect of adding more than 3% oxygen to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on adhesion formation in a laparoscopic mouse model. Fertil Steril. 82:1616–1622. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

59 

Yesildaglar N and Koninckx PR: Adhesion formation in intubated rabbits increases with high insufflation pressure during endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 15:687–691. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

60 

Otani K, Ishihara S, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Hata K, Kiyomatsu T, Tanaka T, Nishikawa T, Yasuda K, Sasaki K, et al: A retrospective study of laparoscopic surgery for small bowel obstruction. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 16:34–39. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

61 

Hellebrekers BW, Trimbos-Kemper TC, Trimbos JB, Emeis JJ and Kooistra T: Use of fibrinolytic agents in the prevention of postoperative adhesion formation. Fertil Steril. 74:203–212. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

62 

Sulaiman H, Dawson L, Laurent GJ, Bellingan GJ and Herrick SE: Role of plasminogen activators in peritoneal adhesion formation. Biochem Soc Trans. 30:126–131. 2002.PubMed/NCBI

63 

Menzies D and Ellis H: Intra-abdominal adhesions and their prevention by topical tissue plasminogen activator. J R Soc Med. 82:534–535. 1989.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

64 

Meier H, Dietl KH and Willital GH: First clinical results of intraoperative application of streptokinase-streptodornase in children. Langenbecks Arch Chiv. 366:191–193. 1985.

65 

De Wilde RL, Devassy R, Ten Broek RPGT, Miller CE, Adlan A, Aquino P, Becker S, Darmawan F, Gergolet M, Habana MAE, et al: The future of adhesion prophylaxis trials in abdominal surgery: An expert global consensus. J Clin Med. 11(1476)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

66 

Brown CB, Luciano AA, Martin D, Peers E, Scrimgeour A and diZerega GS: Adept Adhesion Reduction Study Group. Adept (icodextrin 4% solution) reduces adhesions after laparoscopic surgery for adhesiolysis: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 88:1413–1426. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

67 

Hosie K, Gilbert JA, Kerr D, Brown CB and Peers EM: Fluid dynamics in man of an intraperitoneal drug delivery solution: 4% icodextrin. Drug Deliv. 8:9–12. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

68 

Wiseman DM, Trout JR and Diamond MP: The rates of adhesion development and the effects of crystalloid solutions on adhesion development in pelvic surgery. Fertil Steril. 70:702–711. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

69 

Ahmad M and Crescenti F: Significant adhesion reduction with 4DryField PH after release of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Surg J (N Y). 5:e28–e34. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

70 

Blumhardt G, Haas M and Polte S: Effect of 4DryField® PH, a novel adhesion barrier, on recurrence of intestinal adhesions after extensive visceral adhesiolysis. Case Rep Surg. 2018(9628742)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

71 

Khalaf AT, Abdalla AN, Ren K and Liu X: Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP): A revolutionary approach in dermatology and skincare. Eur J Med Res. 29(487)2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

72 

Abazid A, Babak A, Huschitt N, Badendieck S and Stope MB: Application of non-invasive physical plasma in an in vitro tissue model of fibroblasts and epithelial cells: enhanced cell adhesion in mesh implants. Wehrmed Monatsschr. 69:6–12. 2025.

73 

Nakagawa H, Matsumoto Y, Matsumoto Y, Miwa Y and Nagasaki Y: Design of high-performance anti-adhesion agent using injectable gel with an anti-oxidative stress function. Biomaterials. 69:165–173. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

74 

Förster S, Niu Y, Eggers B, Nokhbehsaim M, Kramer FJ, Bekeschus S, Mustea A and Stope MB: Modulation of the tumor-associated immuno-environment by non-invasive physical plasma. Cancers (Basel). 15(1073)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

75 

Freund E, Moritz J, Stope M, Seebauer C, Schmidt A and Bekeschus S: Plasma-derived reactive species shape a differentiation profile in human monocytes. Appl Sci. 9(2530)2019.

76 

Niu Y, Förster S, Badendieck S, Nokhbehsaim M, Abazid A and Stope MB: Non-invasive physical plasma modulates macrophage polarization: A potential strategy for tumor microenvironment remodeling. Anticancer Res. 44:2437–2444. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

77 

Holl M, Rasch ML, Becker L, Keller AL, Schultze-Rhonhof L, Ruoff F, Templin M, Keller S, Neis F, Keßler F, et al: Cell type-specific anti-adhesion properties of peritoneal cell treatment with plasma-activated media (PAM). Biomedicines. 10(927)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

78 

Kang SU, Kim YS, Kim YE, Park JK, Lee YS, Kang HY, Jang JW, Ryeo JB, Lee Y, Shin YS and Kim CH: Opposite effects of non-thermal plasma on cell migration and collagen production in keloid and normal fibroblasts. PLoS One. 12(e0187978)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

79 

Koensgen D, Besic I, Gümbel D, Kaul A, Weiss M, Diesing K, Kramer A, Bekeschus S, Mustea A and Stope MB: Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) and CAP-stimulated cell culture media suppress ovarian cancer cell growth-a putative treatment option in ovarian cancer therapy. Anticancer Res. 37:6739–6744. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

80 

Nitsch A, Sander C, Eggers B, Weiss M, Egger E, Kramer FJ, Erb HHH, Mustea A and Stope MB: Pleiotropic devitalization of renal cancer cells by non-invasive physical plasma: Characterization of molecular and cellular efficacy. Cancers (Basel). 15(481)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

81 

Bateman BG, Nunley WC Jr and Kitchin JD III: Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions with ibuprofen. Fertil Steril. 38:107–108. 1982.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

82 

Puchalski A: The influence of cumulative dexamethasone, promethazine and dextran 70 used as protection against intraperitoneal adhesions on selected parameters of humoral immunity in women operated on for infertility. Ann Acad Med Stetin. 44:115–136. 1998.PubMed/NCBI(In Polish).

83 

Jansen RP: Failure of peritoneal irrigation with heparin during pelvic operations upon young women to reduce adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 166:154–160. 1988.PubMed/NCBI

84 

Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Garimella V, Monson JRT and Fleming FJ: Laparotomy for small-bowel obstruction: First choice or last resort for adhesiolysis? A laparoscopic approach for small-bowel obstruction reduces 30-day complications. Surg Endosc. 28:65–73. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

85 

Sajid MS, Khawaja AH, Sains P, Singh KK and Baig MK: A systematic review comparing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesional small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg. 212:138–150. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

86 

Swank DJ, Swank-Bordewijk SC, Hop WC, Van Erp WF, Janssen IM, Bonjer HJ and Jeekel J: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: A blinded randomised controlled multi-centre trial. Lancet. 361:1247–1251. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

87 

Van den Beukel BA, de Ree R, van Leuven S, Bakkum EA, Strik C, van Goor H and ten Broek RPG: Surgical treatment of adhesion-related chronic abdominal and pelvic pain after gynaecological and general surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 23:276–288. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

88 

Elgergawi A, Dawood AS, Salem HA and Alhalwagy A: Outcome of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in infertile patients with pelvic adhesions following cesarean delivery: A randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 112(e36)2019.

89 

Wang PY, Lee YC, Liu WM and Chen CH: Surgical outcome of benign cases with pelvic adhesions undergoing robotic total hysterectomy. J Chin Med Assoc. 85:853–858. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

90 

Chiu LH, Chen CH, Tu PC, Chang CW, Yen YK and Liu WM: Comparison of robotic surgery and laparoscopy to perform total hysterectomy with pelvic adhesions or large uterus. J Minim Access Surg. 11:87–93. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

91 

Milone M, Manigrasso M, Anoldo P, D'Amore A, Elmore U, Giglio MC, Rompianesi G, Vertaldi S, Troisi RI, Francis NK and De Palma GD: The role of robotic visceral surgery in patients with adhesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 12(307)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

92 

Van Goor H: Consequences and complications of peritoneal adhesions. Colorectal Dis. 9 (Suppl 2):S25–S34. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

93 

Aguayo P, Fraser JD, Ilyas S, St Peter SD, Holcomb GW III and Ostlie DJ: Laparoscopic management of small bowel obstruction in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 21:85–88. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

94 

Poves I, Sebastián Valverde E, Puig Companyó S, Dorcaratto D, Membrilla E, Pons MJ and Grande L: Results of a laparoscopic approach for the treatment of acute small bowel obstruction due to adhesions and internal hernias. Cir Esp. 92:336–340. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

Related Articles

Journal Cover

May-2025
Volume 29 Issue 5

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Sturm MC, Abazid A and Stope MB: Tissue adhesion after surgical interventions (Review). Exp Ther Med 29: 97, 2025.
APA
Sturm, M.C., Abazid, A., & Stope, M.B. (2025). Tissue adhesion after surgical interventions (Review). Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 29, 97. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2025.12847
MLA
Sturm, M. C., Abazid, A., Stope, M. B."Tissue adhesion after surgical interventions (Review)". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 29.5 (2025): 97.
Chicago
Sturm, M. C., Abazid, A., Stope, M. B."Tissue adhesion after surgical interventions (Review)". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 29, no. 5 (2025): 97. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2025.12847