# A Personalized Approach to Adhesion Prevention in Single-Port Access Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Prospective Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Adhesion Barriers and Patient-Specific Risk Factors

## TL;DR

This study explores personalized adhesion prevention in single-port laparoscopic surgery by testing an anti-adhesive agent and identifying patient-specific risk factors.

## Contribution

The study introduces a personalized approach to adhesion prevention by evaluating an anti-adhesive agent and patient-specific risk factors in single-port laparoscopic surgery.

## Key findings

- The adhesion barrier showed a non-significant trend toward reducing umbilical adhesions.
- Pre-existing adhesions were identified as a significant risk factor for new adhesion formation.
- The adhesion barrier was confirmed safe with no significant increase in complications.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic surgery has gained popularity due to its cosmetic benefits and reduced postoperative pain. However, concerns persist regarding the increased risk of adhesions due to the larger umbilical incision. This study aims to contribute to personalized medicine by evaluating the effectiveness of applying an anti-adhesive agent (Guardix SG®, HanmiPharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) at the umbilical incision and identifying patient-specific risk factors for adhesion formation in SPA laparoscopic surgeries. Methods: In this randomized prospective study, 55 female patients with benign gynecological conditions were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group, which received the anti-adhesive agent at both the surgical and umbilical sites, or a control group, which received it only at the surgical site. Participants returned for outpatient visits 1–3 months post-surgery to assess incision site complications, including adhesions. Results: The overall adhesion rate was 10.9%, with 13.3% in the control group and 8% in the intervention group, though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.678). Infection rates were 6.7% in the control group and 4% in the intervention group; however, there was no significant difference in complications. Logistic regression identified pre-existing adhesions as a significant risk factor (p = 0.0379; OR = 6.909). Conclusions: Although the adhesion barrier showed a trend toward reducing umbilical adhesions, the difference was not statistically significant. The application of the adhesion barrier did not influence incision site complications, confirming its safety. Our findings highlight the need for personalized approaches to adhesion prevention, considering individual patient characteristics and risk factors. Further larger studies are necessary to explore adhesion prevention in a more personalized manner for individual patients in this context.