BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.
BACKGROUND: Pelvic adhesions can form secondary to inflammation, endometriosis, or surgical trauma. Strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation include placing barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene, and fibrin or collagen sheets between pelvic structures.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on rates of pain, live birth, and postoperative adhesions in women of reproductive age.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in August 2019: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries. We searched reference lists of relevant papers, conference proceedings, and grey literature sources. We contacted pharmaceutical companies for information and handsearched relevant journals and conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of barrier agents compared with other barrier agents, placebo, or no treatment for prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (1316 women). Seven RCTs randomised women; the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (eight RCTs) and laparotomy (11 RCTs) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (seven RCTs), ovarian surgery (five RCTs), pelvic adhesions (five RCTs), endometriosis (one RCT), and mixed gynaecological surgery (one RCT). The sole indication for surgery in three of the RCTs was infertility. Thirteen RCTs reported commercial funding; the rest did not state their source of funding. No studies reported our primary outcomes of pelvic pain and live birth rate. Oxidised regenerated cellulose versus no treatment at laparoscopy or laparotomy (13 RCTs) At second-look laparoscopy, we are uncertain whether oxidised regenerated cellulose at laparoscopy reduced the incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 3 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence) or of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, 100 participants; I² = 36%; very low-quality evidence). At second-look laparoscopy, we are uncertain whether oxidised regenerated cellulose affected the incidence of de novo adhesions after laparotomy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, 1 RCT, 271 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the incidence of re-formed adhesions may have been reduced in the intervention group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55, 6 RCTs, 554 participants; I² = 41%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported results on pelvic pain, live birth rate, adhesion score, or clinical pregnancy rate. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene versus oxidised regenerated cellulose at gynaecological surgery (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether expanded polytetrafluoroethylene reduced the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.41, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether expanded polytetrafluoroethylene resulted in a lower adhesion score (out of 11) (MD -3.79, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.46, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence) or a lower risk of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.80, 23 participants; very low-quality evidence) when compared with oxidised regenerated cellulose. No studies reported results regarding pelvic pain, live birth rate, or clinical pregnancy rate. Collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT) Evidence suggests that collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol may reduce the incidence of adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.77, 47 participants; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol improved clinical pregnancy rate (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.38 to 23.48, 39 participants; very low-quality evidence). One study reported adhesion scores but reported them as median scores rather than mean scores (median score 0.8 in the treatment group vs median score 1.2 in the control group) and therefore could not be included in the meta-analysis. The reported P value was 0.230, and no evidence suggests a difference between treatment and control groups. No studies reported results regarding pelvic pain or live birth rate. In total, 15 of the 19 RCTs included in this review reported adverse events. No events directly attributed to adhesion agents were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence on the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on pelvic pain or live birth rate in women of reproductive age because no trial reported these outcomes. It is difficult to draw credible conclusions due to lack of evidence and the low quality of included studies. Given this caveat, low-quality evidence suggests that collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol plus glycerol may be more effective than no treatment in reducing the incidence of adhesion formation following pelvic surgery. Low-quality evidence also shows that oxidised regenerated cellulose may reduce the incidence of re-formation of adhesions when compared with no treatment at laparotomy. It is not possible to draw conclusions on the relative effectiveness of these interventions due to lack of evidence. No adverse events directly attributed to the adhesion agents were reported. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Common limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Most studies were commercially funded, and publication bias could not be ruled out.
ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes sometidos a colectomía para la colitis ulcerosa (CU) pueden experimentar complicaciones asociadas con una menor calidad de vida (CV), y tal vez una considerable carga económica para los sistemas de salud. La apreciación de estas cargas es importante evaluar la rentabilidad de las nuevas intervenciones para la UC vs colectomía.
Objetivo: Identificar los datos que representan la utilización o los costos de las complicaciones derivadas de procedimientos colorrectales en pacientes con CU y datos que representan la calidad de vida del paciente de recursos, según lo informado por los valores de servicios públicos del estado de salud (HSUVs).
MÉTODOS: Embase, Medline y The Cochrane Library se buscaron estudios el uso de recursos (1995-2014) la presentación de informes / costos de las complicaciones quirúrgicas y datos HSUVs en pacientes adultos con CU, sometidos a procedimientos colorrectales. Actas de la conferencia (enero 2011-enero 2014) fueron buscados a mano.
RESULTADOS: Doce estudios informaron el uso de recursos / costos, y tres datos HSUVs reportados en pacientes con CU experimentar complicaciones quirúrgicas. Costes medios adicionales de las complicaciones postoperatorias oscilaron entre $ 18 650 / paciente con complicaciones en un niño de 6 meses de seguimiento (incidencia del 46%) a $ 34 714 / paciente con complicaciones durante un período de 5 años (incidencia del 49%). Bolsitis, insuficiencia bolsa y obstrucción del intestino delgado llevan la mayor carga. Se observaron reducciones marcadas en HSUVs para los pacientes con CU experimentar complicaciones quirúrgicas, frente a los pacientes con CU en un estado de remisión.
CONCLUSIONES: Existe una escasez de estudios bien informados sobre el uso de recursos / costos y la calidad de vida carga de complicaciones quirúrgicas en pacientes con CU. Sin embargo, las complicaciones quirúrgicas representan una carga considerable tanto en términos de costo y de calidad de vida, con reoperaciones, honorarios médicos, adicionales de pacientes hospitalizaciones y tratamiento de la infertilidad siendo los principales impulsores de costos.
A pesar de la aparición de adherencias-reconocido por cesárea atribuible, su importancia clínica es incierta. La presencia de adherencias durante una cesárea de repetición puede hacer la extracción fetal largo y el procedimiento difícil y puede aumentar el riesgo de lesiones a órganos adyacentes. Se discuten dos métodos para la prevención de la adhesión, el cierre peritoneal y el uso de barreras de adherencia. Cierre peritoneal parece ser seguro en el corto plazo. A largo plazo, las pruebas son contradictorias surgen de la revisión de la literatura para los posibles beneficios de la reducción de adherencia. Una revisión sistemática de la literatura sobre el uso de barreras de adhesión en el contexto de la cesárea produjo sólo unos pocos estudios, la mayoría de los cuales carecen de metodología. Por ahora, parece que la evidencia disponible no apoya el uso rutinario de barreras de adhesión durante el parto por cesárea.
ANTECEDENTES: La formación de adherencias después de los resultados de la cirugía peritoneal en alta morbilidad. Las barreras para evitar la adhesión rara vez se aplican, a pesar de su capacidad para reducir la gravedad de la formación de adherencias. Evaluamos los riesgos y beneficios de las barreras de cuatro de adhesión que han sido aprobados para uso clínico.
MÉTODOS: En esta revisión sistemática y meta-análisis, se realizaron búsquedas en PubMed, CENTRAL y EMBASE para los ensayos clínicos aleatorios que evaluaron el uso de celulosa oxidada regenerada, carboximetilcelulosa hialuronato, icodextrina, o polietilenglicol en la cirugía abdominal. Dos investigadores identificaron de forma independiente los informes y los datos extraídos. Comparamos el uso de una barrera con ninguna barrera para nueve resultados predefinidos, graduada de relevancia clínica. El resultado primario fue la reoperación por obstrucción intestino delgado por adherencias. Se evaluó el error sistemático, error aleatorio, y el error de diseño con el enfoque de la matriz de error. Este estudio se ha registrado en PROSPERO, número CRD42012003321.
RESULTADOS: Nuestra búsqueda 1840 resultados, de los cuales se incluyeron 28 ensayos (5191 pacientes) en nuestro meta-análisis. Los riesgos de errores sistemáticos y aleatorios fueron bajos. Ningún ensayo informó datos para el efecto de glicol de celulosa regenerada o polietileno oxidado en reoperaciones por obstrucción de intestino delgado por adherencias. Oxicelulosa redujo la incidencia de adherencias (riesgo relativo [RR] 0 · 51, IC del 95%: 0 · 31-0 · 86). Alguna evidencia sugiere que la carboximetilcelulosa hialuronato reduce la incidencia de reintervenciones por obstrucción intestino delgado por adherencias (RR 0 · CI 49, 95% 0 · 28-0 · 88). Para icodextrina, reoperación por obstrucción intestino delgado por adherencias no difirió significativamente entre los grupos (RR 0 · CI 33, 95% 0 · 03-3 · 11). No hay barreras se asociaron con un aumento de los eventos adversos graves.
INTERPRETACIÓN: oxicelulosa y carboximetilcelulosa hialuronato pueden reducir con seguridad consecuencias clínicamente relevantes de adherencias.
FINANCIACIÓN: Ninguno.
ANTECEDENTES:
Las adherencias intraabdominales son frecuentes y constituyen un desafío para los pacientes, los cirujanos y otros prestadores de atención sanitaria. Son potencialmente prevenibles y para su profilaxis se han evaluado varios agentes que actúan como barreras entre las superficies peritoneales adyacentes. Su eficacia, evaluada mediante revisiones sistemáticas, sólo se ha analizado en la cirugía ginecológica.
OBJETIVOS:
Determinar la eficacia y la seguridad de la profilaxis de las adherencias peritoneales en la incidencia, la distribución y la obstrucción intestinal relacionada con las adherencias después de la cirugía no ginecológica.
ESTRATEGIA DE BÚSQUEDA:
Se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), en el registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Cáncer Colorrectal (Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group), MEDLINE (1966-2008) y en EMBASE (1971-2008)
CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN:
Se consideraron los ensayos clínicos aleatorios y cuasialeatorios, cegados y no cegados.
RECOPILACIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE DATOS:
Dos revisores realizaron las búsquedas de forma individual y evaluaron la calidad de los estudios para su inclusión, los que se analizaron mediante el programa informático Revman Analysis 5.0.0 proporcionado por la Colaboración Cochrane. El metanálisis utilizó un modelo de efectos aleatorios.
RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:
Siete ensayos aleatorios eran elegibles; seis compararon membrana de ácido hialurónico/carboximetil (HA/CMC) y uno gel de hialuronato ferroso al 0,5% versus controles.
HA/CMC redujo la incidencia de adherencias (OR 0,15 [IC del 95%: 0,05; 0,43]; p = 0,0005) con una reducción en la extensión (DMP -25,9% [IC del 95%: -40,56; -11,26]; p = 0,0005) y la gravedad. No hubo reducción en la obstrucción intestinal que necesitó cirugía (odds ratio 0,84 [IC del 95%: 0,24; 2,7]) y la morbilidad y mortalidad globales fueron comparables.
El estudio del gel de hialuronato ferroso al 0,5% se terminó prematuramente y no fue posible establecer conclusiones válidas, pero hubo una incidencia mayor de morbilidad general (OR 5,04; IC del 95%: 1,1; 22,9) y el íleo (OR 9,29; IC del 95%: 1,57, 54,77; p=0,01).
CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES:
Implicaciones para la práctica
Hay pruebas de que el uso de la membrana de HA/CMC reduce la incidencia, la extensión y la gravedad de las adherencias lo que, teóricamente, tiene implicaciones en la reintervención quirúrgica abdominal. Sin embargo, no existen pruebas de que se reduzca la incidencia de obstrucción intestinal o la necesidad de intervenciones quirúrgicas. La HA/CMC parece ser segura, pero puede haber un riesgo de pérdida cuando se coloca alrededor de una anastomosis. La HA/CMC se puede considerar para la profilaxis de las adherencias intraabdominales a discreción del cirujano y en un contexto clínico.
Implicaciones para la investigación
Se necesitan más investigaciones para explorar la efectividad de otros agentes en la cirugía abdominal en general. Se debe considerar la sinergia con el uso de agentes dirigidos a diferentes aspectos de la formación de adherencias, con una exploración efectiva en un amplio rango de cirugías de emergencia y electivas. Se necesitan resultados a más largo plazo de obstrucción intestinal recurrente y dolor crónico y la identificación de grupos de pacientes de alto riesgo, así como la evaluación de la relación entre costo y efectividad.
Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.
