CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Intestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsHernia repair and managementSurgical Sutures and Adhesives

Physical and biological properties of a novel anti-adhesive punctate uneven gelatin film

Open access
Ozamoto, Yuki, Horii, Tsunehito, Morita, Shinichiro, Tsujimoto, Hiroyuki, Oe, Yasumitsu, Minato, Hiroshi, Ueda, Joe, Ichikawa, Hiroshi +4 more·2025·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0314159PMC PMC11737851
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Since abdominal adhesion are quite problematic in abdominal and pelvic surgery, the conventional HA/CMC film are commonly used as an anti-adhesive material. However, such types are difficult to be rolled and delivered through the port of laparoscopic surgical devices due to adherence to the laparoscopic port or other parts of the films. To create an anti-adhesion film with more favorable handling properties and anti-adhesive effect, we developed a novel punctate uneven gelatin film (PU GF). In this study, we examined the physical strength, flexibilities and adhesiveness between film to tissues or film each other, compared to the conventional film and the flat gelatin film (Flat GF). In addition, we investigated the cell proliferation on each film and the anti-adhesive effect of the films and those reattachment possibility using a rat cecum abrasion model. The PU GF showed excellent tensile strength, ductility, and adherence to tissue compared to Flat GF and the conventional film. Moreover, the adherence of PU GF to the other film and to a silicon sheet were much lower than those of the Flat GF and conventional film. The proliferation of cells in PU GF and Flat GF were suppressed compared with control, though increased with time. The anti-adhesive scores of the PU GF after one time and re-attachment were significantly higher than that of non-covered control, although there was no significant difference between that of the conventional film and control. Our findings suggest that PU GF improve handling properties of laparoscopic surgery as it has excellent physical strength, ductility, and adherence to tissue, and low adherence to trocar. In addition, the punctate film may be more useful with the re-attachability without tearing and to retained sufficient anti-adhesion effect.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0314159

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A newly developed punctate-structured gelatin film (PU GF) demonstrated superior anti-adhesion performance and handling characteristics compared to both a conventional HA/CMC film and a flat gelatin film.

    “A newly developed punctate-structured gelatin film (PU GF), derived from porcine type I collagen and thermally crosslinked, demonstrated superior anti-adhesion performance and handling characteristics compared to both a conventional hyaluronic acid/carboxymethyl cellulose (HA/CMC) film and a flat gelatin film (Flat GF) [49].”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Discussion and Conclusion (page unavailable) support better handling of PU GF than Flat GF and the conventional film. The Anti-adhesive effect test (page unavailable) found significant benefits for both PU GF and Flat GF versus untreated controls, but did not demonstrate that PU GF outperformed Flat GF or the conventional film in anti-adhesion; Flat GF had slightly lower adhesion scores than PU GF. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • PU GF exhibited enhanced mechanical properties, including high tensile strength (73.83 ± 13.35 MPa) and ductility (fracture strain 7.27 ± 2.5%), and superior adhesion to tissue (4.0 ± 0.76 MPa) while minimizing undesirable self-adhesion and silicon adherence.

    “PU GF also exhibited enhanced mechanical properties, including high tensile strength (73.83 ± 13.35 MPa) and ductility (fracture strain 7.27 ± 2.5%), and superior adhesion to tissue (4.0 ± 0.76 MPa) while minimizing undesirable self-adhesion and silicon adherence.”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

  • PU GF has potential as a practical, bioactive, and re-attachable anti-adhesion barrier suited for laparoscopic applications.

    “Together, these findings highlight PU GF’s potential as a practical, bioactive, and re-attachable anti-adhesion barrier suited for laparoscopic applications (Figure 2(E1–E13)).”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

  • In a rat cecum abrasion model, PU GF significantly reduced adhesion extent and severity (0.71 ± 1.50 and 0.43 ± 0.79, respectively) compared to controls (3.88 ± 0.35 and 3.63 ± 0.74, p < 0.05), and maintained efficacy even after re-attachment.

    “In a rat cecum abrasion model, PU GF significantly reduced adhesion extent and severity (0.71 ± 1.50 and 0.43 ± 0.79, respectively) compared to the controls (3.88 ± 0.35 and 3.63 ± 0.74, p < 0.05), and maintained efficacy even after re-attachment.”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Unlike the conventional film, which completely inhibited fibroblast proliferation, PU GF supported moderate, non-cytotoxic cell growth, suggesting a safer mechanism of adhesion prevention via controlled degradation rather than cytotoxicity.

    “Unlike the conventional film, which completely inhibited fibroblast proliferation, PU GF supported moderate, non-cytotoxic cell growth, suggesting a safer mechanism of adhesion prevention via controlled degradation rather than cytotoxicity.”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [1]Zeng Q, Yu Z, You J, Zhang Q. Efficacy and safety of Seprafilm for preventing postoperative abdominal adhesion: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2007; 31(11): 2125– 2132. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9242-9 17899250 · DOI
  2. [3]Ahmad G, Flynn H, Hindocha A, Watson A. Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 2015(4): CD000475. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000475.pub3 25924805 PMC7043269 · DOI
  3. [4]Broek P, Issa Y, Santbrink J, Bouvy D, Kruitwagen F, Jeekel J, et al. Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ. 2013; 347: f5588. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5588 24092941 PMC3789584 · DOI
  4. [5]Baakdah H, Tulandi T. Adhesion in gynecology complication, cost, and prevention: a review. Surg Technol Int. 2005; 14: 185– 90. 16525972
  5. [6]Swank J, Swank-Bordewijl G, Hop J, Erp M, Janssen C, Bonjer J, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomized controlled multi-centre trial. The Lancet. 2003; 361(9365): 1247– 1251. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12979-0 12699951 · DOI
  6. [7]Caspi E, Halperin Y, Bukovsky I. The importance of peri-adnexal adhesions in tubal reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril. 1979; 31(3): 296– 300. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)43877-x 437162 · DOI
  7. [8]Liu B, Kong Y, Alimi A, Kuss A, Tu H, Hu W, et al. Multifunctional Microgel-Based Cream Hydrogels for Postoperative Abdominal Adhesion Prevention. ACS Nano. 2023; 17(4): 3847– 3864. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c12104 36779870 PMC10820954 · DOI
  8. [9]Fang Y, Huang S, Gong X, King A, Wang Y, Zhang J, et al. Salt sensitive purely zwitterionic physical hydrogel for prevention of postoperative tissue adhesion. Acta Biomater. 2023; 158: 239– 251. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.12.045 36581005 · DOI
  9. [10]Diamond P, Burns L, Accomando B, Mian S, Holmdahl L. Seprafilm® adhesion barrier: (1) a review of preclinical, animal, and human investigational studies. Gynecol Surg. 2012; 9(3): 237– 245. doi: 10.1007/s10397-012-0741-9 22837732 PMC3401296 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [11]Diamond P, Burns L, Accomando B, Mian S, Holmdahl L. Seprafilm(®) adhesion barrier: (2) a review of the clinical literature on intraabdominal use. Gynecol Surg. 2012; 9(3): 247– 257. doi: 10.1007/s10397-012-0742-8 22837733 PMC3401301 · DOI
  11. [12]David B. The role of seprafilmTM bioresorbable membrane in adhesion prevention. Eur J Surg. 1997; 577(577): 49– 55. doi: 10.1002/jbm.10040 9076452 · DOI
  12. [13]James MB, Merril TD, Victor WF, David EB, Steven JS, Steven DW, et al. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: A prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg. 1996; 183(4): 297– 306. doi: 10.1007/s00595-021-02258-w 8843257 · DOI
  13. [14]Huang C, Liu H, Kuo Y, Chen P. Photo-Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid/Carboxymethyl Cellulose Composite Hydrogel as a Dural Substitute to Prevent Post-Surgical Adhesion. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(11): 6177. doi: 10.3390/ijms23116177 35682853 PMC9181059 · DOI
  14. [15]Widiyanti P, Priskawati A. Synthesis and Characterization of Hydrogel-Based Hyaluronic Acid-Chitosan-Allium sativum Extract for Intraperitoneal Antiadhesion Application. Int J Biomater. 2023; 2023: 5172391. doi: 10.1155/2023/5172391 36909980 PMC10005870 · DOI
  15. [16]Nakashima M, Takeuchi M, Kawakami K. Effectiveness of barrier agents for preventing postoperative bowel obstruction after laparoscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Today. 2021; 51(8): 1335– 1342. doi: 10.1007/s00595-021-02258-w 33646411 · DOI
  16. [17]Saito G, Sadahiro S, Ogimi T, Miyakita H, Okada K, Tanaka A, et al. Preventive effects of a synthetic absorbable antiadhesive film (seprafilm) on small bowel obstruction in patients who underwent elective surgery for colon cancer: A randomized controlled trial. J Surg Oncol. 2019; 120(6): 1038– 1043. doi: 10.1002/jso.25664 31392725 · DOI
  17. [18]Fazio W, Cohen Z, Fleshman W, van Goor H, Bauer J, Wolff G, et al. Reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm adhesion barrier after intestinal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006; 49(1): 1– 11. doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0268-5 16320005 · DOI
  18. [19]Shimizu H, Kuriu Y, Arita T, Kiuchi J, Yamamoto Y, Konishi H, et al. Simple and reliable method for the application of Seprafilm® during laparoscopic surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2022; 15(2): 449– 452. doi: 10.1111/ases.12995 34595840 · DOI
  19. [20]Kusuki I, Suganuma I, Ito F, Akiyama M, Sasaki A, Yamanaka K, et al. Usefulness of moistening seprafilm before use in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014; 24(1): e13– 5. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31828f6ec1 24487168 · DOI
  20. [21]Steensel S, Liu H, Vercoulen F, Hadfoune M, Breukink O, Stassen P, et al. Prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions by a hyaluronic acid gel; an experimental study in rats. J Biomater Appl. 2021; 35(7): 887– 897. doi: 10.1177/0885328220954188 32878535 · DOI
  21. [22]Tsujimoto H, Tanzawa A, Matoba M, Hashimoto A, Suzuki S, Morita S, et al. The anti-adhesive effect of thermally cross-linked gelatin film and its influence on the intestinal anastomosis in canine models. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101(1): 99– 109. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.32821 23077032 · DOI
  22. [23]Tsujimoto H, Tanzawa A, Miyamoto H, Horii T, Tsuji M, Kawasumi A, et al. Biological properties of a thermally crosslinked gelatin film as a novel anti-adhesive material: Relationship between the biological properties and the extent of thermal crosslinking. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015; 103(7): 1511– 8. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33340 25449656 · DOI
  23. [24]Horii T, Tsujimoto H, Miyamoto H, Yamanaka K, Tanaka S, Torii H, et al. Physical and biological properties of a novel anti-adhesion material made of thermally cross-linked gelatin film: Investigation of the usefulness as anti-adhesion material. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2018; 106(2): 689– 696. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33880 28306184 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [25]Miyamoto H, Tsujimoto H, Horii T, Ozamoto Y, Ueda J, Takagi T, et al. The influences of a novel anti-adhesion device, thermally cross-linked gelatin film on peritoneal dissemination of tumor cells: The in vitro and in vivo experiments using murine carcinomatous peritonitis models. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2018; 106(2): 2122– 2130. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34017 29024447 · DOI
  25. [26]Ota K, Sato K, Ogasawara J, Takahashi T, Mizunuma H, Tanaka M. Safe and easy technique for the laparoscopic application of Seprafilm® in gynecologic surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2019; 12(2): 242– 245. doi: 10.1111/ases.12621 30549222 · DOI
  26. [27]Kojima Y, Sakamoto K, Tomiki Y, Mizukoshi K. Experience in the use of a device to attach an anti-adhesion-absorption barrier film to the abdominal cavity in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2020; 16(4): 449– 450. doi: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_226_19 32098937 PMC7597882 · DOI
  27. [28]Greenwood A, Williamson JBP. Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc R Soc Lond A. 1966; 295: 300– 319. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1966.0242 · DOI
  28. [29]Koketsu S, Sameshima S, Okuyama T, Yamagata Y, Takeshita E, Tagaya N, et al. An effective new method for the placement of an anti-adhesion barrier film using an introducer in laparoscopic surgery. Tech Coloproctol. 2015; 19(9): 551– 553. doi: 10.1007/s10151-015-1340-3 26165210 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ozamoto, Y., Horii, T., Morita, S., Tsujimoto, H., Oe, Y., Minato, H., Ueda, J., Ichikawa, H., Kawauchi, A., Hagiwara, A., Kageyama, S., & Tani, M.
Affiliations
  • Doshisha University (JP)
  • Shiga University of Medical Science (JP)
Corresponding author
Horii, Tsunehito
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2025-01-16
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
e0314159
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0314159
PMC
PMC11737851
OpenAlex
W4406457788
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (22K09521, 22K08763)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Sutures and Adhesives
Keywords
anti-adhesion barrier, gelatin films, peritoneal adhesions, laparoscopic surgery, tensile strength, film flexibility, cell proliferation, reattachment
MeSH terms
Tissue Adhesions, Animals, Cecum, Gelatin, Male, Materials Testing, Laparoscopy, Tensile Strength, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Cell Proliferation, Mice, Rats

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