References

1. Poehnert, D. et al. (2016). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Peritoneal Adhesion Prevention Devices in a Rat Model. Int. J. Med. Sci.; 13(7): 524-532. Doi: 10.7150/ijms.15167. – Read the study here
2. Hanke, A. et al. (2011): Effects of a New Microporous Polysaccharide Powder on Viscoelastic Charac- 21 teristics of Clot Formation. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2011, American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting. – Read the study here
3. Korell et al. (2016): Use of Modified Polysaccharide 4DryField® PH for Adhesion Prevention and and Hemostasis in Gynecological Surgery: A Two-Center Observational Study by Second-Look Laparoscopy. Biomed Res Int. 2016:3029264. doi: 10.1155/2016/3029264. Read the study here
4. Torres-de la Roche, L.A., et al. (2020). A new approach to avoid ovarian failure as well function- impairing adhesion formation in endometrioma infertility surgery. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05483-9. Read the study here
5. Ziegler, N. et al. (2016). Uterine perforation following a fractional curettage successfully treated with the modified polysaccharide 4DryField® PH: a case report. Journal of Medical Case Reports, 10: 243, 5. Read the study here
6. Watrowski, R. (2019). Unifying local hemostasis and adhesion prevention during gynaecologic laparoscopies: experiences with a novel, plant-based agent. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Sep 4:1-3. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1636779. Read the study here

7.     Poehnert, D. et al. (2015). Evaluation of the biological tolerability of the starch- based medical device 4DryField® PH in vitro and in vivo a rat model.  Journal of Biomaterials Applications, 30(4), 463–47. Read the study here

8. Dijkstra F.R., et al. (2000). Recent clinical developments in pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of intra-abdominal adhesions. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl ;232:52-9. Read the study here
9. Menzies D, Ellis H. (1990). Intestinal obstruction from adhesions–how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl;72:60-3. Read the study here
10. Tabibian, N. et al. (2017). Abdominal adhesions: A practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med Surg (Lond); 15: 9–13. Read the study here
11. Lower, A.M. et al. (2000). The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study. ;107(7):855-62. Read the study here
12. Kossi, J. et al. (2003). Population-based study of the surgical workload and economic impact of bowel obstruction caused by postoperative adhesions. Br J Surg;90(11):1441-4. Read the study here
13. Ellis, H. et al. (1999). Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery a restrospective cohort study. Lancet. 353(9163):1476-80. Read the study here
14. Sikirica, V. et al. (2011). The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynaecological adhesiolysis in the US. BMC Surg; 11:13. Doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-11-13. Read the study here
15. Tulandi, T. et al. (2009). Adhesion development and morbidity after repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol.;201(1):56.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.039. Read the study here
16. Morales, K.J. et al. (2007). Am J Obstet Gynecol.;196(5):461.e1-6. Postcesarean delivery adhesions associated with delayed delivery of infant. Read the study here
17. Nicole Ziegler and Rudy Leon De Wilde. Adhesion reduction with 4DryField®PH in endometriosis and other gynecological surgeries: a controlled, retrospective, single center study with second-look laparoscopy. 5th European Congress on Endometriosis 2019, Prague.
18. Korell, M. (2014). Combined Hemostasis and Adhesion Prevention with the Novel Agent 4DryField® PH – Initial Observations. Surgical Science 2014, 5(1), 533–539