Advertisement

The Biology of Peritoneal Tissue Repair

  • Andrew T. Raftery

Abstract

Intraabdominal fibrous adhesions are a major cause of intestinal obstruction.1 By far the most common cause of intraabdominal adhesions is previous surgical intervention. Most surgeons regard intraabdominal adhesions as a problem, because reoperation on the abdomen is made difficult by prolonged dissection of fibrous adhesions with the risk of visceral damage. Because adhesions may have such serious consequences, it is not surprising that a very large number of techniques have been devised with the aim of preventing their development. Many of these however have been shown to be unreliable. 1,2 Many of the techniques used have been of an empirical nature, and little improvement can be expected unless the underlying pathogenesis is understood because a clear understanding of pathogenesis is a prerequisite to rational prophylaxis and therapy.

Keywords

Mesothelial Cell Adhesion Formation Fibrinolytic Activity Wound Surface Parietal Peritoneum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ellis H. The cause and prevention of post-operative in-traperitoneal adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1971; 133:497–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly JE, Smith JW. The prevention and treatment of intestinal adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1960; 110:417–431.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hertzler AE. The Peritoneum, Vol. 1. St. Louis: Mosby, 1919.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robbins GF, Brunschwig A, Foote FW. Deperitonealization; clinical and experimental observations. Ann Surg 1949; 130:466–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellis H, Harrison W, Hugh TB. The healing of peritoneum under normal and pathological conditions. Br J Surg 1965; 52:471–476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eskeland G. Regeneration of parietal peritoneum. 1. A light microscopical study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1966; 68:355–378.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raftery AT. Regeneration of parietal and visceral peritoneum. A light microscopical study. Br J Surg 1973; 60:293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams DC. The peritoneum. A plea for a change in attitude towards this membrane. Br J Surg 1955; 42:401–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hubbard TB, Khan MZ, Carag VR, et al. The pathology of peritoneal repair: its relation to the formation of adhesions. Ann Surg 1967; 65:908–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cameron GR, Hassan SM, De SN. Repair of Glisson’s capsule after tangential wounds of the liver. J Pathol Bacteriol 1957; 73:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson FE, Whitting HW. Repair of parietal peritoneum. Br J Surg 1962; 49:653–660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bridges JC, Whitting HW. Parietal peritoneal healing in the rat.J Pathol Bacteriol 1964; 87:123–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eskeland G. Growth of autologous peritoneal fluid cells in intraperitoneal diffusion chambers in rats. A light microscopical study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1966; 68:481–500.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eskeland G, Kjaerheim A. Regeneration of parietal peritoneum in rats. 2. An electron microscopical study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1966; 68:379–395.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eskeland G, Kjaerheim A. Growth of autologous peritoneal fluid cells in intraperitoneal diffusion chambers in rats. 2. An electron microscopical study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1966; 68:501–516.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raftery AT. Regeneration of parietal and visceral peritoneum; an electron-microscopical study. J Anat 1973; 115:375–392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raftery AT. Mesothelial cells in peritoneal fluid. J Anat 1973; 115:237–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watters WB, Buck RC. Scanning electron microscopy of mesothelial regeneration in the rat. Lab Invest 1972; 26:604–609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watters WB, Buck RC. Mitotic activity of peritoneum in contact with a regenerating area of peritoneum. Virchows Arch Abt B Zellpathol 1973; 13:48–54.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raftery AT. Regeneration of parietal and visceral peritoneum: an enzyme histochemical study. J Anat 1976; 121:589–597.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raftery AT. An enzyme histochemical study of mesothelial cells in rodents. J Anat 1973; 115:365–373.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bolen JW, Hammer SP, McNutt MA. Serosal tissue: reactive tissue as a model for understanding mesotheliomas. Ultra-struct Pathol 1987; 11:251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Devens K. Recurrent intestinal obstruction in the neonatal period. Arch Dis Child 1963; 38:118–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Replogle RL, Johnson R, Gross RE. Prevention of post-operative intestinal adhesions with combined promethazine and dexamethazone therapy: experimental and clinical studies. Ann Surg 1966; 163:580–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raftery AT. Regeneration of parietal and visceral peritoneum in the immature animal: a light and electronmicro-scopical study. Br J Surg 1973; 60:969–975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mott TJ, Ashby EC, Flannery BP, et al. The effect of protein deficiency upon peritoneal healing and peritoneal wound contraction in the rat. Br J Nutr 1969; 23:497–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mott TJ, Ellis H. A method of producing experimental uraemia in the rabbit, with some observations on the influence of uraemia on peritoneal healing. Br J Urol 1967; 39:341–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venables C, Ellis H, Burns JE. The effects of X-radiation on peritoneal healing: an experimental study. Br J Radiol 1967; 40:275–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gordon JA, Smith GMR, Ellis H. The effect of cytotoxic drugs on the healing of peritoneal wounds in the rat. Br J Cancer 1967; 21:763–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jagelman DG, Stoker TAM, Ellis H. The effect of malignant disease on peritoneal healing in the rat. Br J Cancer 1972; 26:226–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    deHaan BB, Ellis H, Wilks M. The role of infection on wound healing. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1974; 138:693–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cleaver CLT, Hopkins AD, Kee Kwong KC Ng, Raftery AT. The effect of postoperative peritoneal lavage on survival, peritoneal wound healing and adhesion formation following fecal peritonitis: an experimental study in the rat. Br J Surg 1974; 61:601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Walker DM. Effects of blood, bile and starch in the peritoneal cavity of the rat.J Anat 1978; 126:495–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raftery AT. The effect of urine and bile in the peritoneal cavity: a histological and f ibrinolytic study in the rat. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1980; 62:380.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trimpi HD, Bacon HE. Clinical and experimental study of denuded surfaces in extensive surgery of the colon and rectum. Am J Surg 1952; 84:596–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis H. The aetiology of post-operative abdominal adhesions. An experimental study. Br J Surg 1962; 50:10–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thomas JW, Rhoads JE. Adhesions resulting from removal of serosa from an area of bowel; failure of ‘over sewing’ to lower incidence in the rat and guinea pig. Arch Surg 1950; 61:565–567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hartwell SW. The Mechanics of Healing in Human Wounds. Springfield: Thomas, 1955:109.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Myrhe-Jensen O, Larsen SB, Astrup T. Fibrinolytic activity in serosal and synovial membranes. Arch Pathol 1969; 88:623–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gervin AS, Puckett CL, Silver D. Serosal hypofibrinolysis. A cause of postoperative adhesions. Am J Surg 1973; 125: 80–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Raftery AT. Regeneration of peritoneum: a fibrinolytic study. J Anat 1979;129:659–664.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raftery AT. A method for measuring fibrinolytic activity in a single layer of cells. J Clin Pathol 1981;34:625–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Raftery AT. Effect of peritoneal trauma on peritoneal fibrinolytic activity and intraperitoneal adhesion formation. An experimental study in the rat. Eur Surg Res 1981;13:397–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Booth WV, Zimny M, Kaufman HJ, et al. Scanning electron microscopy of small bowel strangulation obstruction. Am J Surg 1973;125:129–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew T. Raftery

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations