Ask any question about EPFL courses, lectures, exercises, research, news, etc. or try the example questions below.
DISCLAIMER: The Graph Chatbot is not programmed to provide explicit or categorical answers to your questions. Rather, it transforms your questions into API requests that are distributed across the various IT services officially administered by EPFL. Its purpose is solely to collect and recommend relevant references to content that you can explore to help you answer your questions.
A covalently and a physicochemically cross-linked hydrogel, both based primarily on polyethylene glycol and both formed in situ, were compared side by side in a rat uterine horn devascularization and serosal injury model for efficacy in adhesion prevention. The primary difference between the two materials was the nature of their cross-linking. The covalently cross-linked hydrogel was a photopolymerized polyethylene glycol-co-lactic acid diacrylate, and the physically cross-linked hydrogel was a polyethylene glycol-co-polypropylene glycol, Poloxamer 407. In the surgical model employed, application of the covalently cross-linked hydrogel reduced the extent of adhesion formation from 75 +/- 10% in the control group to 16 +/- 6% (mean +/- s.d., P < 0.001). Application of the physically cross-linked hydrogel reduced adhesion formation to 38 +/- 19% (P < 0.01). Retention of the two hydrogels upon the site of application was also evaluated. The covalently cross-linked hydrogel formed a continuous barrier upon the uterine horns for more than 4 d, while the physicochemically cross-linked hydrogel was present upon the uterine horns for less than 2 d. This difference in retention was probably the cause of the difference in efficacy and may be attributed to the nature of the cross-linking. [on SciFinder (R)]