Pelvic Surgery pp 117-125 | Cite as

Clinical Trial Design for Evaluation of Treatments Purported to Prevent Postsurgical Adhesions

  • Arthur F. Haney


Performing clinical trials to evaluate different treatments purported to reduce postoperative pelvic adhesions is intrinsically difficult. These trials typically involve gynecologic surgical procedures and require early second-look laparoscopic evaluation,1–6 which is an expensive undertaking. There is a diverse array of therapeutic strategies currently under investigation as well as a wide variety of clinical situations in which postsurgical adhesions may occur. To further complicate the matter, there are usually limited resources available for investigation of new technologies and substantial economic pressures to rapidly determine efficacy. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the usual approach is to extract the maximum information from a clinical trial at minimal cost. However, unless a proper experimental design is employed, the entire effort may be wasted without ever testing the hypothesis that the treatment is effective. This leads to the possibility that an ineffective or potentially hazardous therapy might be deemed clinically useful or an effective therapy might be discarded. The goal for a clinical trial is to design it so that a positive result is sufficient to change physician behavior. Few, if any, of the currently available trials attain this level of scientific excellence.


Regenerate Cellulose Clinical Trial Design Postoperative Adhesion American Fertility Society Change Physician Behavior 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Surrey MW, Friedman SL. Second-look laparoscopy after reconstructive pelvic surgery. J Reprod Med. 1982; 27: 658–660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daniell JF, Pittaway DE. Short interval second-look laparoscopy after infertility surgery: a preliminary report. J Reprod Med. 1983; 28: 281–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeCherney AH, Mezer HC. The nature of posttuboplasty pelvic adhesions as determined by early and late laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 1984; 41: 643–646.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pittaway DE, Daniell JF, Maxson WS. Ovarian surgery in an infertility patient as an indication for a short-interval second-look laparoscopy: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril. 1985; 44: 611–614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Operative Laparoscopy Study Group. Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 700–704.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trimbos-Kemper TCM, Trimbos JB, van Hall EV. Adhesion formation after tubal surgery: results of the eight-day laparoscopy in 188 patients. Fertil Steril. 1985; 43: 395–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young MJ, Bresnitz EA, Strom BL. Sample size nomograms for interpreting negative clinical studies. Ann Intern Med. 1983; 99: 248–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimitrijevich SD, Tatarko MT, Gracy RW, et al. In vivo degradation of oxidized regenerated cellulose. Carbohydr Res. 1990; 198: 331–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haney AF, Doty E. Comparison of the peritoneal cells elicited by oxidized regenerated cellulose (Interceed) and expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane) in a murine model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1137–1149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Myomectomy Adhesion Multicenter Study Group. An expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene barrier (Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane) reduces post-myomectomy adhesion formation. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 491–493.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diamond MP, Daniell JF, Feste J, et al. Adhesion reformation and de novo adhesion formation after reproductive pelvic surgery. Fertil Steril.1987; 47: 864–866.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenberg SM, Board JA. High-molecular weight dextran in human infertility surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 148: 380–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li TC, Cooke ID. The value of an absorbable adhesion barrier, Interceed, in the prevention of adhesion reformation following microsurgical adhesiolysis: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994; 101: 335–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adhesion Study Group. Reduction of postoperative pelvic adhesions with intraperitoneal 32% dextran 70: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 1983; 40: 612–619.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Interceed (TC7) Adhesion Barrier Study Group. Prevention of post surgical adhesions by Interceed (TC7), an absorbable adhesion barrier: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Fertil Steril. 1989; 51: 933–938.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haney AF, Hesla J, Hurst BS, et al. Expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex Surgical Membrane) is superior to oxidized regenerated cellulose (Interceed TC7) in preventing adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 1021–1026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sekiba K, the Obstetrics and Gynecology Adhesion Prevention Committee. Use of Interceed (TC7) absorbable adhesion barrier to reduce postoperative adhesion reformation in infertility and endometriosis surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79: 518–522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hulka JF, Omran K, Berger GS. Classification of adnexal adhesions: a proposal and evaluation of its prognostic value. Fertil Steril. 1978; 30: 661–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancy, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 944–955.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur F. Haney

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations