Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the antiadhesive effect and safety of a novel adhesion barrier device (ABD) in comparison to other commercially available anti-adhesion products. Methods: A 4-arm, controlled, blinded, experimental, and murine model study design was used. Forty male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly allocated to Interceed, Seprafilm, ABD, and control groups (n = 10/group). Abdominal cavity trauma was induced in all rats. Interceed, Seprafilm, or the ABD were applied to the injury site of each rat according to their respective groups, the control group received no intervention. Results: Twenty-one days after the operation, surgical adhesion severity and area scores were significantly reduced in the Interceed, Seprafilm, and ABD groups compared to the control group (P = 0.016, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively), and in the ABD group compared to the Interceed group (P = 0.036). No significant difference was observed between the ABD and Seprafilm groups (P = 0.070). Additionally, in the ABD group, no remnants of the ABD were observed at the injury site, and no hematological abnormalities were present. Conclusion The ABD has the potential to improve postsurgical peritoneal adhesions compared to Interceed and has comparable effectiveness compared to Seprafilm. The ABD may be a valuable option to reduce surgical failure. Further studies in human subjects are warranted to determine the clinical application and safety of the ABD for commercialization.

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the antiadhesive effect and safety of a novel adhesion barrier device (ABD) in comparison to other commercially available anti-adhesion products. Methods: A 4-arm, controlled, blinded, experimental, and murine model study design was used. Forty male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly allocated to Interceed, Seprafilm, ABD, and control groups (n = 10/group). Abdominal cavity trauma was induced in all rats. Interceed, Seprafilm, or the ABD were applied to the injury site of each rat according to their respective groups, the control group received no intervention. Results: Twenty-one days after the operation, surgical adhesion severity and area scores were significantly reduced in the Interceed, Seprafilm, and ABD groups compared to the control group (P = 0.016, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively), and in the ABD group compared to the Interceed group (P = 0.036). No significant difference was observed between the ABD and Seprafilm groups (P = 0.070). Additionally, in the ABD group, no remnants of the ABD were observed at the injury site, and no hematological abnormalities were present. Conclusion The ABD has the potential to improve postsurgical peritoneal adhesions compared to Interceed and has comparable effectiveness compared to Seprafilm. The ABD may be a valuable option to reduce surgical failure. Further studies in human subjects are warranted to determine the clinical application and safety of the ABD for commercialization.

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the antiadhesive effect and safety of a novel adhesion barrier device (ABD) in comparison to other commercially available anti-adhesion products. Methods: A 4-arm, controlled, blinded, experimental, and murine model study design was used. Forty male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly allocated to Interceed, Seprafilm, ABD, and control groups (n = 10/group). Abdominal cavity trauma was induced in all rats. Interceed, Seprafilm, or the ABD were applied to the injury site of each rat according to their respective groups, the control group received no intervention. Results: Twenty-one days after the operation, surgical adhesion severity and area scores were significantly reduced in the Interceed, Seprafilm, and ABD groups compared to the control group (P = 0.016, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively), and in the ABD group compared to the Interceed group (P = 0.036). No significant difference was observed between the ABD and Seprafilm groups (P = 0.070). Additionally, in the ABD group, no remnants of the ABD were observed at the injury site, and no hematological abnormalities were present. Conclusion The ABD has the potential to improve postsurgical peritoneal adhesions compared to Interceed and has comparable effectiveness compared to Seprafilm. The ABD may be a valuable option to reduce surgical failure. Further studies in human subjects are warranted to determine the clinical application and safety of the ABD for commercialization.