Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos 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)]