Background/Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate, for the first time, the effectiveness and safety of 4% icodextrin solution by detecting the incidence of adhesion-related morbidities (adhesion-related hospital readmissions, including reoperations) when used as an adhesion prophylactic agent during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Methods: The study was a single-arm, two-center, retrospective study. The incidence of hospital readmissions that were directly or possibly related to adhesions following the use of 4% icodextrin in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery, 2 years from the date of index surgery, was assessed either via chart review alone or, when found necessary, in combination with patient-completed questionnaires. Patient safety was evaluated through reported adverse events. The relationship between clinical events and the use of 4% icodextrin was assessed by investigators based on patient-level data. Results: After 149 patients were screened, the study finally included 123 patients; 4 (3.3%; 95% CI: 0.89%, 8.12%) had at least one reoperation or readmission that was directly or possibly related to adhesion within 2 years of index surgery. In the supplemental analysis (67 patients using chart and questionnaire data), this incidence rate was 10.4% (95% CI: 4.30%, 20.35%). No adverse events related to the use of 4% icodextrin were reported. Conclusions: This is the first study ever evaluating hospital readmission/reoperation rates after application of a specific adhesion prophylactic agent. The results indicate that 4% icodextrin is safe and effective when used as an intraperitoneal instillate for reduction in adhesions in gynecological laparoscopic procedures. It has a lower readmission and reoperation rate compared to meta-analysis data in the international literature.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Maya Sophie de Wilde
Kaylen Silverberg
Thamer Alahmad
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Pius Hospital Oldenburg
Texas Fertility Center
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Wilde et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69e1cf985cdc762e9d85885b — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15083027
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: