3.8 Article

A comparison of the local effectiveness of mitomycin C, aprotinin, and Adcon-L in experimental peridural fibrosis

Journal

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 6, Pages 608-613

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.07.071

Keywords

Peridural fibrosis; Mitomycin C; Aprotinin; Adcon-L; Failed back surgery syndrome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Peridural fibrosis and leptomeningeal adhesion formation are among the common causes of FBSS. Various materials have been used to prevent the compressive effect of postoperative PF on neural structures. We investigated and compared the effects of 3 agents-aprotinin, mitomycin C, and Adcon-L-to PF after lumbar laminectomy in rabbits. Methods: Four groups each including 8 rabbits were formed: Adcon-L, aprotinin, mitomycin C, and control groups. L-3 laminectomy was performed on each animal. One of the 3 agents was administered locally to laminectomy areas in each group. All the animals were killed 4 weeks after the surgery. Peridural fibrosis, arachnoidal fibrosis, and dural adhesions were evaluated histologically and graded. The results were compared statistically by using a standard chi(2) test. Results: There were significant differences in the PF grades among the experimental groups and the control group (P < .05). When the fibroblast density and the inflammatory cell density were evaluated, the grades of the experimental groups were better compared with the grades of the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). Conclusion: Various materials have been used to prevent the compressive effect of postoperative PF on the neural structures. Aprotinin, mitomycin C, and Adcon-L are effective in preventing PF and dural adhesions in postlaminectomy areas. However, mitomycin C and Adcon-L were more effective than aprotinin in preventing peridural scarring. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available