Postoperative adhesions result from abnormal tissue repair and most frequently occur in patients following abdominal and pelvic surgeries. Prevention of adhesion formation, including the use of anti-adhesion barriers during surgery, is considered the most effective clinical strategy for postoperative adhesions. However, no commercial product is commonly used worldwide because of its insufficient efficacy, complexity, and difficulty of use. We developed a new anti-adhesion barrier using novel biomaterial (SI-449), a cross-linked chondroitin sulfate, in an easy-to-apply powder form. Our previous study using animal models showed that the anti-adhesion efficacy of SI-449 was superior to that of an existing product. In this study, the safety of SI-449 was evaluated based on the results of systemic toxicity tests in rats after intraperitoneal application and a wound healing test in laparotomized rats to mimic its clinical use in abdominal and pelvic surgeries. In the systemic toxicity test, minimal and transient hematological changes and muscular regeneration in the abdominal wall and ileum were observed and were considered to be related to systemic toxicity or local irritation due to SI-449. However, these findings were within the safety margin and not associated with serious toxicity. Other changes were considered physiological reactions to SI-449 or its degradants. In the wound healing test, SI-449 was found to have no effect on the healing of the incisional abdominal wall. In conclusion, the non-clinical safety of SI-449 was confirmed, and this novel biomaterial is expected to be used as an anti-adhesion barrier in abdominal and pelvic surgeries.
ArungWMeurisseMDetryO. Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol2011; 17(41): 4545–4553. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i41.4545
3.
KheilnezhadBHadjizadehA. A review: progress in preventing tissue adhesions from a biomaterial perspective. Biomater Sci2021; 9(8): 2850–2873. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0bm02023k
4.
LiaoJLiXFanY. Prevention strategies of postoperative adhesion in soft tissues by applying biomaterials: based on the mechanisms of occurrence and development of adhesions. Bioact Mater2023; 26: 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.02.026
5.
GhobrialSOttJParryJP. An overview of postoperative intraabdominal adhesions and their role on female infertility: a narrative review. J Clin Med2023; 12(6): 2263. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062263ik
6.
KlicovaMRosendorfJErbenJ, et al.Antiadhesive nanofibrous materials for medicine: preventing undesirable tissue adhesions. ACS Omega2023; 8(23): 20152–20162. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00341
7.
HassanabadAFZarzyckiANJeonK, et al.Prevention of post-operative adhesions: a comprehensive review of present and emerging strategies. Biomolecules2021; 11(7): 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11071027
VrijlandWWJeekelJvan GeldorpHJ, et al.Abdominal adhesions: intestinal obstruction, pain, and infertility. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech2003; 17(7): 1017–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-9208-9
10.
TabibianNSwehliEBoydA, et al.Abdominal adhesions: a practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med Surg2017; 15: 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.01.021
11.
Ten BroekRPIssaYvan SantbrinkEJ, et al.Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. Br Med J2013; 347: f5588. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5588
12.
De WildeRLDevassyRBroekRPGT, et al.The future of adhesion prophylaxis trials in abdominal surgery: an expert global consensus. J Clin Med2022; 11(6): 1476. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061476
INRERCEED (TC7) Adhesion Barrier Study Group. Prevention of postsurgical adhesions by INTERCEED (TC7), an absorbable adhesion barrier: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Fertil Steril1989; 51(6): 933–938.
15.
DiamondMP. Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm membrane (HAL-F): a blinded, prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. Seprafilm adhesion study group. Fertil Steril1996; 66(6): 904–910.
16.
SutoTWatanabeMEndoT, et al.The primary result of prospective randomized multicenter trial of new spray-type bio-absorbable adhesion barrier system (TCD-11091) against postoperative adhesion formation. J Gastrointest Surg2017; 21(10): 1683–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3503-1
17.
WatanabeJYamaguchiSTakemasaI, et al.Safety, efficacy, and operability of a newly developed absorbable adhesion barrier (GM142) in patients with primary rectal cancer scheduled for diverting ileostomy during laparoscopic surgery: randomized controlled trial. Ann Gastroenterol Surg2022; 6(4): 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12544
18.
WaldronMGJudgeCFarinaL, et al.Barrier materials for prevention of surgical adhesions: systematic review. BJS Open2022; 6(3): zrac075. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac075
19.
TakeuchiHKitadeMKikuchiI, et al.A novel instrument and technique for using seprafilm hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose membrane during laparoscopic myomectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech2006; 16(5): 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2006.16.497
TranHSChrzanowskiFAJPucMM, et al.An in vivo evaluation of a chondroitin sulfate solution to prevent postoperative intraperitoneal adhesion formation. J Surg Res2000; 88(2): 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsre.1999.5714
22.
RenardEChadjichristosCKypriotouM, et al.Chondroitin sulphate decreases collagen synthesis in normal and scleroderma fibroblasts through a Smad-independent TGF-beta pathway--implication of C-Krox and Sp1. J Cell Mol Med2008; 12(6B): 2836–2847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00287.x
23.
ToyamaKTakahashiKFunayamaS, et al.Effects of novel cross-linked chondroitin sulfate (SI-449) as a postoperative anti-adhesion barrier. J Surg Res2024; 304: 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.10.016
24.
DeWildeRLTrewG. Postoperative abdominal adhesions and their prevention in gynaecological surgery. Expert consensus position. Part 2—steps to reduce adhesions. Gynecol Surg2007; 4: 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-007-0333-2
25.
WangMLinSLiuM, et al.An injectable and rapidly degraded carboxymethyl chitosan/polyethylene glycol hydrogel for postoperative antiadhesion. Chem Eng J2023; 463: 142283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.142283
26.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: guidance for resorbable adhesion barrier devices for use in abdominal and/or pelvic surgery. US Food and Drug Administration, 2002.
27.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-11:2017. Biological evaluation of medical devices — part 11: tests for systemic toxicity.
28.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-6:2016. Biological evaluation of medical devices — part 6: tests for local effects after implantation.
29.
HöerJKlingeUSchachtruppA, et al.Influence of suture technique on laparotomy wound healing: an experimental study in the rat. Langenbecks Arch Chir2001; 386(3): 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004230000196
GreenawaltKEColtMJCorazziniRL, et al.Remote efficacy for two different forms of hyaluronate-based adhesion barriers. J Invest Surg2012; 25(3): 174–180. https://doi.org/10.3109/08941939.2011.615894
32.
AhmadGThompsonMKimK, et al.Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020; 7(7): CD001298. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub5
33.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-1:2018. Biological evaluation of medical devices - part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process.
34.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff: use of international standard ISO 10993-1, “biological evaluation of medical devices - part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process”. US Food and Drug Administration, 2023.
WangSZhengYGaoY, et al.In situ crosslinked injectable chondroitin sulfate hydrogel for preventing postoperative adhesion. Biomed Pharmacother2024; 180: 117495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117495
38.
AhmadSMHameedHAl-HussainSA, et al.Chondroitin sulfate: an ideal biomaterial based scaffolds for cartilage regeneration and its therapeutic potential. Carbohydr Polym Technol Appl2025; 10: 100742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2025.100742
39.
ShenQGuoYWangK, et al.A review of chondroitin sulfate’s preparation, properties, functions, and applications. Molecules2023; 28(20): 7093. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28207093
40.
NakazawaKMurataKIzukaK, et al.The short-term effects of chondroitin sulfates A and C on coronary atherosclerotic subjects: with reference to its anti-thrombogenic activities. Jpn Heart J1969; 10(4): 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1536/ihj.10.289
SangisettySLMinerTJ. Malignant ascites: a review of prognostic factors, pathophysiology and therapeutic measures. World J Gastrointest Surg2012; 4(4): 87–95. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v4.i4.87
43.
WeinsteinWMOnderdonkABBartlettJG, et al.Experimental intra-abdominal abscesses in rats: development of an experimental model. Infect Immun1974; 10(6): 1250–1255. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.10.6.1250-1255.1974
44.
MurandoFPelosoACobianchiL. Experimental abdominal sepsis: sticking to an awkward but still useful translational model. Mediat Inflamm2019; 2019: 8971036. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8971036
45.
McKeeCTLastJARussellP, et al.Indentation versus tensile measurements of Young’s modulus for soft biological tissues. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2011; 17(3): 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2010.0520
DeekenCRLakeSP. Mechanical properties of the abdominal wall and biomaterials utilized for hernia repair. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 74: 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.008
48.
KrienerKLalaRHomesRAP, et al.Mechanical characterization of the human abdominal wall using uniaxial tensile testing. Bioengineering (Basel)2023; 10(10): 1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101213
49.
BrownSHMBanuelosKWardSR, et al.Architectural and morphological assessment of rat abdominal wall muscles: comparison for use as a human model. J Anat2010; 217: 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01271.x
Ruiz-AlcarazAJCarmona-MartínezVTristán-ManzanoM, et al.Characterization of human peritoneal monocyte/macrophage subsets in homeostasis: phenotype, GATA6, phagocytic/oxidative activities and cytokines expression. Sci Rep2018; 8(1): 12794. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30787-x
52.
Human and mouse peritoneal macrophages and dendritic cells compared. Nat Immunol2024; 25(1): 17–18.
53.
HanJGallerandAErlichEC, et al.Human serous cavity macrophages and dendritic cells possess counterparts in the mouse with a distinct distribution between species. Nat Immunol2024; 25(1): 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-023-01688-7
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
