Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the use of a carboxymethylcellulose-hyaluronate adhesion barrier (Seprafilm) at the time of Cesarean section. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A tertiary care center in Boston, MA, USA. Population: All women who underwent Cesarean section between the years 2006-20...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Deshpande, Neha A.
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: Harvard University 2015
Online Access:http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17295914
id ndltd-harvard.edu-oai-dash.harvard.edu-1-17295914
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-harvard.edu-oai-dash.harvard.edu-1-172959142017-07-27T15:52:37ZClear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective AnalysisDeshpande, Neha A.Objective: To evaluate the use of a carboxymethylcellulose-hyaluronate adhesion barrier (Seprafilm) at the time of Cesarean section. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A tertiary care center in Boston, MA, USA. Population: All women who underwent Cesarean section between the years 2006-2010 and returned for a second pelvic surgical procedure. Methods: All patients who had a Seprafilm barrier placed at the first (index) Cesarean section were matched on a 2:1 basis to those who had no barrier. Effectiveness and surgical outcomes were compared with Chi Square and Wilcoxon tests. Confounders were identified and controlled with logistic regression models. Main Outcome Measures: The location and severity of pelvic adhesions at the follow-up pelvic surgery. Results: Seventy-seven women who had Seprafilm placed at the index delivery were matched to 154 controls who received no barrier. The two groups had similar rates of any dense adhesions (43% and 42% respectively, p=.78) and those on the anterior uterus (34% and 31%, p=.62) at follow-up surgery. After controlling for all significant confounders, barrier use did not show a significant decrease in any (aOR=0.79, 95% CI 0.43-1.45) or anterior uterine dense adhesion formation (aOR=0.88, 95% CI 0.46-1.65). There were no significant differences in delivery times at follow-up (median 11 minutes in each group, p=.54), or in pelvic infection rate at the index surgery (5% in each group, p=1.0). Conclusion: Seprafilm use at Cesarean section was not associated with a significant decrease in dense adhesion formation.2015-07-13T19:44:08Z2015-052015-06-0820152015-07-13T19:44:08ZThesis or Dissertationtextapplication/pdfDeshpande, Neha A. 2015. Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Medical School.http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17295914enopenhttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAAHarvard University
collection NDLTD
language en
format Others
sources NDLTD
description Objective: To evaluate the use of a carboxymethylcellulose-hyaluronate adhesion barrier (Seprafilm) at the time of Cesarean section. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A tertiary care center in Boston, MA, USA. Population: All women who underwent Cesarean section between the years 2006-2010 and returned for a second pelvic surgical procedure. Methods: All patients who had a Seprafilm barrier placed at the first (index) Cesarean section were matched on a 2:1 basis to those who had no barrier. Effectiveness and surgical outcomes were compared with Chi Square and Wilcoxon tests. Confounders were identified and controlled with logistic regression models. Main Outcome Measures: The location and severity of pelvic adhesions at the follow-up pelvic surgery. Results: Seventy-seven women who had Seprafilm placed at the index delivery were matched to 154 controls who received no barrier. The two groups had similar rates of any dense adhesions (43% and 42% respectively, p=.78) and those on the anterior uterus (34% and 31%, p=.62) at follow-up surgery. After controlling for all significant confounders, barrier use did not show a significant decrease in any (aOR=0.79, 95% CI 0.43-1.45) or anterior uterine dense adhesion formation (aOR=0.88, 95% CI 0.46-1.65). There were no significant differences in delivery times at follow-up (median 11 minutes in each group, p=.54), or in pelvic infection rate at the index surgery (5% in each group, p=1.0). Conclusion: Seprafilm use at Cesarean section was not associated with a significant decrease in dense adhesion formation.
author Deshpande, Neha A.
spellingShingle Deshpande, Neha A.
Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis
author_facet Deshpande, Neha A.
author_sort Deshpande, Neha A.
title Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis
title_short Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis
title_full Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis
title_fullStr Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clear Film Adhesion Barrier Use at Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis
title_sort clear film adhesion barrier use at cesarean section: a retrospective analysis
publisher Harvard University
publishDate 2015
url http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17295914
work_keys_str_mv AT deshpandenehaa clearfilmadhesionbarrieruseatcesareansectionaretrospectiveanalysis
_version_ 1718507315868467200