MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412987671 · doi:10.1016/j.bbiosy.2025.100115

Gynecologic postoperative anti-adhesion barriers: From biomaterials to barrier development

2025· review· en· W4412987671 on OpenAlexafffund
Abbas Fazel Anvari‐Yazdi, Daniel J. MacPhee, Ildikó Badea, Daniel Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomaterials and Biosystems · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsAdhesionMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gynecologic postoperative adhesions (GPOA) remain an under-appreciated source of morbidity despite advances in minimally invasive surgery. Adhesions forming after myomectomy, extensive endometriosis excision, repeat caesarean section, or hysteroscopic adhesiolysis develop in 20 - 90 % of patients and account for up to 40 % of secondary infertility, chronic pelvic pain, bowel obstruction, and life-threatening obstetric complications such as placenta accreta spectrum. Because the uterus is hormonally responsive and destined for potential pregnancy, anti-adhesion barriers for gynecologic tissues must meet stricter criteria for biocompatibility, resorption timing, teratogenic safety, and reproductive regulatory classification than barriers designed for bowel or tendon repair. This review consolidates the rapidly expanding literature on biomaterial-based barriers specifically tailored for gynecologic applications. We first dissect the pathophysiology of uterine and adnexal adhesion formation-including mesothelial disruption, fibrin persistence, and estrogen-modulated wound remodeling-to highlight design targets unique to the female reproductive tract. Next, we critically appraise natural and synthetic polymers, discussing how formulation parameters govern in-vivo elimination or excretion routes and influence fertility outcomes. Cutting-edge fabrication strategies-such as electrospinning, 3D bioprinting, melt electrowriting, Janus hydrogels, and microneedle patches-are reviewed with an eye toward uterine conformity, minimally invasive deployability, and on-demand release of drugs or exosomes. We further map current FDA-cleared films (INTERCEED™, Seprafilm®, SurgiWrap®) against unmet gynecologic needs, delineate limitations, and identify opportunities for multifunctional, self-healing, image-visible, and patient-specific barrier platforms. By framing adhesion prevention through a gynecologic lens, this article provides clinicians, materials scientists, and device developers with a roadmap for translating next-generation barriers from bench to bedside, ultimately reducing infertility, surgical re-admission, and obstetric risk in women worldwide.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomaterials and BiosystemsSame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207