Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Study of the Safety of Seprafilm® Adhesion Barrier in Abdominopelvic Surgery of the Intestine

Beck, David E., Cohen, Zane, Fleshman, James W., Kaufman, Howard S., van Goor, Harry, Wolff, Bruce G.·2003·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Seprafilm® adhesion barrier (Seprafilm®) has been proven to prevent adhesion formation after abdominal and pelvic surgery. This article reports safety results, including the postoperative incidence of abdominal and pelvic abscess and pulmonary embolism, from a large, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Seprafilm® for reduction of adhesion-related postoperative bowel obstruction after abdominopelvic surgery. METHODS: A total of 1,791 patients participated in this prospective, randomized, multicenter, multinational, single-blind, controlled study in patients undergoing abdominopelvic surgery, the majority of whom had inflammatory bowel disease. Just before closure of the abdomen, patients were randomized to a Seprafilm® or no-treatment control group. Patients received an average of 4.4 and as many as 10 Seprafilm® adhesion barriers applied to organs and tissue surfaces that sustained direct surgical trauma and to suspected adhesiogenic surfaces. Complications that occurred within the first month after surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: During the safety evaluation period, the difference between the Seprafilm® and control groups for the incidence of abscess (4vs.3 percent, respectively) or pulmonary embolism (<1 percent in both groups) was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Foreign body reaction was not reported in either group. Fistula (2vs.<1 percent) and peritonitis (2vs.<1 percent) occurred more frequently (P≤ 0.05) in the Seprafilm® group. In a subpopulation of patients in whom Seprafilm® was wrapped around a fresh bowel anastomosis, leak-related events, which included anastomotic leak, fistula, peritonitis, abscess, and sepsis, occurred more frequently (P≤ 0.05). There were no other differences in the incidence, severity, or causative relationship of complications between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the safety of Seprafilm® adhesion barrier with respect to abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and pulmonary embolism when administered to patients undergoing abdominopelvic surgery. Foreign body reaction was not reported for any patient. However, wrapping the suture or staple line of a fresh bowel anastomosis with Seprafilm® should be avoided, because the data suggest that this practice may increase the risk of sequelae associated with anastomotic leak.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10350-004-6739-2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Beck, D. E., Cohen, Z., Fleshman, J. W., Kaufman, H. S., van Goor, H., & Wolff, B. G.
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
2003-10
Volume
46
Issue
10
Pages
1310-1319
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054550088
Cited by
370
References
0
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Study of the Safety of Seprafilm® Adhesion Barrier in Abdominopelvic Surgery of the Intestine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10350-004-6739-2
The paper
Beck, D. E., Cohen, Z., Fleshman, J. W., Kaufman, H. S., van Goor, H., & Wolff, B. G. (2003). A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Study of the Safety of Seprafilm® Adhesion Barrier in Abdominopelvic Surgery of the Intestine. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6739-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.