A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

Method Article

A Translational Surgical Porcine Model for Postoperative Intra-Abdominal Adhesion Formation

749 views

DOI:

10.3791/70377

March 13th, 2026

In This Article

Summary

This protocol describes a porcine model of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesion formation using Yucatan mini pigs undergoing open abdominal surgery with bowel resection. The approach reliably induces intra-abdominal adhesions and provides a platform for evaluating adhesion development and testing anti-adhesion strategies.

Abstract

A porcine model of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesion formation was established using Yucatan mini pigs. The protocol combines midline laparotomy, small bowel resection with two-layer primary anastomosis, and a unilateral, parietal peritoneal abrasion in the format of an open abdominal surgical procedure. Adhesion formation was assessed four weeks postoperatively using established gross and histologic scoring criteria, with evaluations performed by blinded observers. Adhesions developed in all animals using this model and were multifocal, involving bowel loops, between the bowel and abdominal wall, involving the peritoneum overlying other organs in the abdomen (e.g. the liver), and operative sites, with variable severity. Histological analysis at four weeks demonstrated adhesions composed predominantly of extracellular matrix, fibroblasts, and blood vessels, consistent with a remodeling-phase wound healing tissue phenotype. This model is relevant for the study of abdominal adhesion fibrosis biology and/or the translational evaluation of candidate anti-adhesion therapeutics. By integrating a clinically relevant intestinal surgical procedure with a defined peritoneal injury and a standardized assessment strategy, this protocol provides a reproducible approach for inducing and evaluating postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions in a large animal model.

Introduction

Postoperative adhesions are a major source of morbidity following abdominal and pelvic surgery, developing in up to 93% of patients1,2, with approximately 20% requiring hospitalization within five years for adhesion-related complications3,4. Peritoneal injury arises from abdominal surgical procedures as well as intra-abdominal irritation (infection or chemical exposure) or chronic inflammatory conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease. The resulting adhesions can lead to a wide range of clinical consequences, including recurrent bowel obstructions sometimes requiring additional surgeries, or causing infertility and chronic pain5,6,7. Adhesion formation can be particularly severe following multi-visceral resections for malignancy, such as cytoreductive surgeries, chronic inflammation, or bowel perforation, where extensive peritoneal injury amplifies the fibrotic response. Additionally, adhesive disease can significantly complicate subsequent surgical interventions, often making it impossible to proceed with a minimally invasive approach or causing inadvertent iatrogenic injury to the bowel or other organs.

Despite their clinical significance, the development of effective anti-adhesion strategies is limited - likely hindered in part by limitations in preclinical models that recapitulate the anatomy, physiology, and wound-healing responses seen in humans8. Rodent models are widely used due to their availability, experimental tractability, and reliable adhesion generation9,10,11. However, their small peritoneal cavity, thin mesentery, and distinct inflammatory milieu can limit translational relevance8,12. Such models have contributed to the development of anti-adhesion approaches that demonstrated robust efficacy in animal studies but demonstrated limited or context-dependent clinical benefit in humans8,13,14,15,16,17. In addition, human-comparable surgical procedures such as bowel resection and anastomosis are difficult to model in a translationally relevant manner in rodents, and species-specific differences in drug metabolism further limit clinical extrapolation18.

Large animal models, particularly swine, are widely used to study abdominal processes due to their anatomical and physiological similarity to humans and their comparable surgical handling, providing a platform to study both adhesion formation and test therapeutic interventions19,20,21,22. Existing porcine adhesion models have provided important insights, yet many focus on procedure-specific adhesion formation and often lack standardized procedures limiting their applicability particularly to severe adhesions arising after open intestinal surgery23,24,25,26,27.

To address these limitations, we developed a porcine model of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions that integrates midline laparotomy, small bowel resection, and a unilateral, parietal peritoneal abrasion. This multifocal peritoneal strategy recapitulates adhesion-promoting insults commonly encountered during abdominal surgical procedures and produces adhesions of different strengths and locations at the four-week timepoint with guaranteed adhesions on the side of the abdomen where directed parietal abrasion is performed as well as stochastic adhesions throughout the abdomen. By incorporating a clinically relevant intestinal surgical procedure with a defined and reproducible peritoneal injury, this model overcomes key limitations of prior porcine systems and provides a consistent platform for studying postoperative adhesion formation and evaluating anti-adhesion interventions.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

Ethics Statement

All porcine studies were conducted under protocols approved by the Stanford University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol #34052 as previously described28.

1. Animal Husbandry

  1. Obtain Yucatan mini pigs (recommended 9- to 12-kg, 7 to 9 weeks old) from a verified vendor. We recommend n = 4 pigs per cohort. House animals in pairs in light- and temperature-controlled rooms.
  2. Provide standard porcine chow ad libitum. The animals should have access to a continuous supply of water to avoid dehydration.
    NOTE: Animals were fasted for 12 h prior to surgery and terminal harvest.
  3. Monitor and record body weight and general health at regular intervals per institutional standards.

2. Anesthesia and Preoperative Preparation

  1. Sedate pigs in their home enclosures using intramuscular Xylazine (2.2 mg/kg, intramuscular (IM)) and Ketamine (12 mg/kg IM). Obtain intravenous (IV) access. Carefully transport animals to the surgical suite once sedation is deemed adequate by a veterinarian. Please refer to the Supplementary Table for anesthesia and analgesia information, as protocols may vary by institution.
  2. Once in the surgical suite, secure the animal's airway via endotracheal intubation. Maintain anesthesia throughout the procedure with isoflurane administered in oxygen via a precision vaporizer through an anesthesia circuit equipped with waste gas scavenging under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian.
  3. Administer intravenous (IV) fluids, anti-nausea medications (Cerenia 1-2 mg/kg IV), vasoconstricting medications, and inotropes as needed to treat intraoperative hypotension to avoid bowel hypoperfusion and causing potential risk of anastomotic leak. Please see Supplementary Table for full medication details, regimens will vary per institution.
  4. Apply ophthalmic ointment to lubricate eyes and prevent corneal abrasions. Administer cefazolin (25 mg/kg, IV) or equivalent antibiotic 1 hour prior to incision to prevent a wound infection. Administer an intraoperative analgesic regimen according to institutional veterinary standards. A reference regimen is provided in the Supplementary Table and includes a combination of Carpofen (25 mg/kg IV), Buprenorphine ER (0.18 mg/kg IV).

3. Surgical Procedure

  1. Position the animal supine on a heating pad to maintain normothermia. Measure oxygen saturations (SpO2) via pulse oximeter, pulse with a heart rate monitor, and temperature every 10 mins.
  2. Remove hair from the abdomen using electric clippers, then prepare the skin with a single round of alcohol swabs followed by gauze soaked in povidone-iodine. Blot the excess antiseptic solution away from the abdomen using a sterile towel.
  3. Drape the abdomen using sterile towels and surgical drapes to maintain sterility throughout the procedure. Infiltrate lidocaine (2 mg/kg subcutaneously (SQ)) into the abdominal wall at the planned incision site using a 25-gauge needle.
  4. Perform a midline laparotomy by making a full-thickness incision through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, and abdominal wall musculature along the linea alba to enter the peritoneal cavity using a 10-blade scalpel. Place abdominal wall retractors and eviscerate the intestines.
  5. Identify a region of the bowel ~10-15 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve and resect a 2.5-cm (1-inch) segment of the small bowel using scissors. Resect the associated mesentery with electrocautery for hemostasis of the mesenteric blood vessels. Close the two open bowel ends using interrupted 3-0 silk sutures to achieve a watertight closure. Perform a two-layer, side-to-side primary anastomosis (functional end-to-end). Reconstruct the inner layer of the lumen with a synthetic 3-0 absorbable suture in a running fashion and the outer layer with a running 3-0 non-absorbable suture. Attempt to minimize bowel spillage throughout the procedure.
  6. Gently abrade a 3 x 5 cm section of the parietal peritoneum along the right abdominal sidewall using sterile gauze or an electrocautery scratch pad until the peritoneal surface appears frayed or there is sub serosal edema in the abdominal wall (10-15 strokes with medium pressure). The left abdominal sidewall can be left unabraded to serve as a technical control although using this model stochastic adhesions form throughout the abdomen in a manner similar to human disease.
  7. Reposition the bowel into the abdominal cavity and remove the abdominal wall retractors. Irrigate the abdomen with 1 L of warmed sterile saline, evacuate all fluid and confirm hemostasis (no active bleeding) prior to closure.
  8. Close the fascia with a running 2-0 absorbable suture. Close the skin with a running 2-0 or 3-0 non-absorbable baseball stitch and cover the incision with a sterile dressing. The average duration of the procedure was 1 hour.
  9. Administer Atipamezole (0.2 mg/kg IV) at the end of the procedure to reverse sedation prior to extubating. Extubate animals upon return of spontaneous respiration. Monitor vital signs (pulse, oxygen saturation, temperature, blood pressure) continuously until fully recovered from anesthesia.

4. Postoperative Care

  1. Administer Carprofen (25 - 50 mg) twice a day by mouth (PO) the first 3 days after the surgical procedure and then as needed (PRN) for pain. Maintain the animals on a liquid high protein diet (1.5 bottles twice a day) for the first 3 postoperative days.
    NOTE: Of note, although routine suture removal at 10–14 days postoperatively is common practice, sutures were left in place in animals without signs of wound infection or dehiscence to avoid an additional anesthetic exposure prior to the planned 4-week harvest.
  2. Administer amoxicillin (10 mg/kg) twice a day by mouth for one week then PRN for signs of wound infection (redness, warmth, swelling with or without drainage).
  3. Check on animals twice a day for appetite, activity, bowel function and wound integrity. If concerned about infection, discuss antibiotic dosage and duration with the veterinarian. The sterile dressing should be left on for the first 3 days after the surgical procedure to minimize risk of wound infection. Record weight in 2 - 3 day intervals to ensure weight maintenance postoperatively.
  4. Transition animals to solid chow beginning on postoperative day 4 (POD4). Bridge solid chow intake with supplemental liquid high protein diet until tolerating sufficient calories from solid chow alone.

5. Euthanasia

  1. Euthanize animals at 4 weeks under veterinary supervision prior to necropsy and tissue harvest using an intravenous euthanasia solution according to institutional and AVMA standards.
  2. Assess adhesions grossly. Immediately collect tissues and blood samples for downstream analyses. Dispose of all biological and pharmaceutical waste according to your institution's Environment Health and Safety guidelines.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

The proposed porcine postoperative adhesion model (Figure 1) was combined with an adapted scoring system to grade adhesions in real time28. Adhesion scoring was completed independently by 3 team members blinded to experimental conditions at the 4-week timepoint on a representative cohort of n=4 pigs; the scores were averaged for a final adhesion score per animal (Figure 2A). Intra-abdominal adhesions formed in 100% of animals evaluated on...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

The proposed porcine adhesion model provides a clinically relevant and reliable method for modeling intra-abdominal adhesions. In contrast to focal or single-site injury models, the combination of midline laparotomy, small bowel resection with anastomosis, and standardized parietal peritoneal abrasion was intentionally selected to recapitulate the multifactorial peritoneal insults encountered during open abdominal surgical procedures. The controlled abrasion of the parietal peritoneum along the abdominal sidewall mimics ...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this publication was supported by the Stanford SPARK program, American College of Surgeons Surgical Adhesions Improvement Project Grant, generously supported by the Carlino family, and the Department of Surgery at Stanford University. We would like to thank Stanford Veterinary Service Center and the staff at the Comparative Animal Pavillion. All ideas, analyses, references, and figures were created and verified by the authors. AI tools were used only for minor language and grammar edits.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Animals
Female Yucatan mini pigs, 9 to 12 kg in body weight (7 to 9 weeks old)S&S Farms8
Surgical Supplies
DMI4000 B microscopeLeica MicrosystemsHistology
Materials
Euthasol VirbacEuthanasia
Eosin-Y Alcoholic StainAzer Scientific  Cat#ES709Histology
Frosted slidesFisher Scientific Cat#12-550-400Histology
Mayer′s Hematoxylin Solution Sigma-Aldrich Cat#MHS80 Histology
Medications
AmoxicillinCovetrus59629Infection prevention
10mg/kg PO BID x1
Ancef/CefazolinCovetrus84773Pre-op infection control
25 mg/kg IV
AtipamezoleCovetrus82124Sedation Reversal Agent
0.2 mg/kg 
AtropineCovetrus74760Bradycardia
0.04mg/kg  
Bupernorphine Extended Release (ER)Wedgewood PharamcyAnalgesia
0.18 mg/kg IV
Carprofen - intraoperativeDechraAnalgesia
25 mg/kg IV 
Carprofen - post-operativeDechraAnalgesia
25-50mg PO PRN
CereniaZoetisAnti-nausea
1-2 mg/kg IV once intraoperatively
IsofluraneDechraSedation 
Lidocaine 2%VetOneV1 510212Analgesia
2 mg/kg SQ prior to incision
KetamineDechraAnesthsia & Analgesia
12 mg/kg IM
DobutamineHospira Dosing and titration per anesthesiologist 
Povidone-iodine (Betadine)ValleyVet12265Antiseptic
Xylazine (Rompun)DechraGW l400000Sedation/Analgesia
2.2 mg/kg IM
Surgical Supplies
3-0 PDS (polydioxanone) SutureEthiconCat#Z316HAnastamosis
Quantity - 2 
3-0 Silk Suture (Pop-off) EthiconCat#1679HAnastamosis
Quantity - 1 pack of pop off
0-0 PDS (polydioxanone) SutureEthiconCat#Z990GLinea Alba closure
Quantity - 1
3-0 Prolene SutureEthiconCat#8684GSkin Closure
Quantity - 1
Bovie Electrocautery Grayline Medical SupplyCat#E2516Homeostasis and cutting
Standard set of sterile abomdinal surgical instruments with abdominal wall retractors like Army/Navy's or Richardson reactors. 
3M Tegaderm + Pad 3MCat#3593Surgical Dressing
High protein liquid dietEnsureDiet
1.5 bottles BID
Software
BioRenderAgreement number SH28Z3OOKIFigure generation 
Adobe IllustratorAdobev29.8.1Figure generation 
FIJINIHFigure generation 
*Note: AI tools were used only for minor language and grammar edits
*BID - two times a day,  IV - intravenous, IM - intramuscular, PO - per os/ by mouth, SQ - subcutaneous, PRN - as needed

References

  1. Ellis, H., et al. Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 353 (9163), 1476-1480 (1999).
  2. Stommel, M. W. J., et al. Multicenter Observational Study of Adhesion Formation After Open-and Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer. Ann. Surg. 267 (4), 743(2018).
  3. Krielen, P., et al. Adhesion-related readmissions after open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in 16 524 patients. Colorectal Dis. 24 (4), 520-529 (2022).
  4. Krielen, P., et al. Adhesion-related readmissions after open and laparoscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study (SCAR update). Lancet. 395 (10217), 32636-32644 (2020).
  5. Tabibian, N., Swehli, E., Boyd, A., Umbreen, A., Tabibian, J. H. Abdominal adhesions: A practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med and Surg (Lond). 15, 9-13 (2017).
  6. van den Beukel, B. A., et al. Surgical treatment of adhesion-related chronic abdominal and pelvic pain after gynaecological and general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 23 (3), 276-288 (2017).
  7. Duron, J. -J. Postoperative intraperitoneal adhesion pathophysiology. Colorectal Dis. 9 (s2), 14-24 (2007).
  8. Carmichael, S. P., et al. A Scoping Review of Animal Models for Development of Abdominal Adhesion Prevention Strategies. J Surg Res. 302, 364-375 (2024).
  9. Marshall, C. D., et al. Creation of Abdominal Adhesions in Mice. J Vis Exp. (114), e54450(2016).
  10. Kraemer, B., Wallwiener, C., Rajab, T. K., Brochhausen, C., Wallwiener, M., Rothmund, R. Standardised models for inducing experimental peritoneal adhesions in female rats. Biomed Res Int. 2014, 435056(2014).
  11. Whang, S. H., et al. In search of the best peritoneal adhesion model: comparison of different techniques in a rat model. J Surg Res. 167 (2), 245-250 (2011).
  12. Dawson, H. D., Smith, A. D., Chen, C., Urban, J. F. An in-depth comparison of the porcine, murine and human inflammasomes; lessons from the porcine genome and transcriptome. Vet. Microbiol. 202, 2-15 (2017).
  13. Hassanabad, A. F., et al. Prevention of Post-Operative Adhesions: A Comprehensive Review of Present and Emerging Strategies. Biomolecules. 11 (7), 1027(2021).
  14. Burns, J. W., Colt, M. J., Burgees, L. S., Skinner, K. C. Preclinical evaluation of Seprafilm bioresorbable membrane. Eur J Surg Suppl. (577), 40-48 (1997).
  15. Trew, G., et al. Gynaecological endoscopic evaluation of 4% icodextrin solution: a European, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study of the efficacy and safety in the reduction of de novo adhesions after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Hum Reprod. 26 (8), 2015-2027 (2011).
  16. van den Tol, P., ten Raa, S., van Grevenstein, H., Marquet, R., van Eijck, C., Jeekel, H. Icodextrin reduces postoperative adhesion formation in rats without affecting peritoneal metastasis. Surgery. 137 (3), 348-354 (2005).
  17. van der Wal, J. B. C., Iordens, G. I. T., Vrijland, W. W., van Veen, R. N., Lange, J., Jeekel, J. Adhesion prevention during laparotomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 253 (6), 1118-1121 (2011).
  18. Burkina, V., Rasmussen, M. K., Pilipenko, N., Zamaratskaia, G. Comparison of xenobiotic-metabolising human, porcine, rodent, and piscine cytochrome P450. Toxicology. 375, 10-27 (2017).
  19. Kramer, K., Senninger, N., Herbst, H., Probst, W. Effective Prevention of Adhesions With Hyaluronate. Arch Surg. 137 (3), 278-282 (2002).
  20. Crispi, C. P., et al. Practical considerations in the use of a porcine model (Sus scrofa domesticus) to assess prevention of postoperative peritubal adhesions. PLoS One. 15 (1), e0219105(2020).
  21. Iliopoulos, J., et al. Evaluation of a bioabsorable polylactide film in a large animal model for the reduction of retrosternal adhesions. J Surg Res. 118 (2), 144-153 (2004).
  22. Turcotte, S., Sideris, L., Younan, R., Drolet, P., Dubé, P. Pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal irinotecan in a pig model. J Surg Oncol. 101 (7), 637-642 (2010).
  23. Pu, Z., Nian, H., Li, Z., Zhong, P., Ma, S., Li, J. Research progress on animal models of peritoneal adhesion. Surgery. 178, (2025).
  24. Lauder, C. I. W., Strickland, A., Maddern, G. J. Use of a modified chitosan-dextran gel to prevent peritoneal adhesions in a porcine hemicolectomy model. J Surg Res. 176 (2), 448-454 (2012).
  25. Crispi, C. P., et al. Practical considerations in the use of a porcine model (Sus scrofa domesticus) to assess prevention of postoperative peritubal adhesions. PLoS One. 15 (1), (2020).
  26. Chen, M. D., Teigen, G. A., Reynolds, H. T., Johnson, P. R., Fowler, J. M. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy: an evaluation of adhesion formation after pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in a porcine model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 178 (3), 499-503 (1998).
  27. Dubcenco, E., et al. Adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy in a survival porcine model: comparison of laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Endoscopy. 41 (11), 971-978 (2009).
  28. Foster, D. S., et al. Postoperative adhesions are abrogated by a sustained-release anti-JUN therapeutic in preclinical models. Sci Transl Med. 17 (789), (2025).
  29. Foster, D. S., et al. Elucidating the fundamental fibrotic processes driving abdominal adhesion formation. Nat Commun. 11 (1), 4061(2020).
  30. Sullivan, T. P., Eaglstein, W. H., Davis, S. C., Mertz, P. The pig as a model for human wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 9 (2), 66-76 (2001).
  31. Lunney, J. K., Van Goor, A., Walker, K. E., Hailstock, T., Franklin, J., Dai, C. Importance of the pig as a human biomedical model. Sci Transl Med. 13 (621), (2021).
  32. Walters, E. M., Wells, K. D., Bryda, E. C., Schommer, S., Prather, R. S. Swine models, genomic tools and services to enhance our understanding of human health and diseases. Lab Anim (NY). 46 (4), 167-172 (2017).
  33. Ribitsch, I., et al. Large Animal Models in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering: To Do or Not to Do. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 8, 972(2020).
  34. Prabhakar, S. Translational research challenges: finding the right animal models. J Investig Med. 60 (8), 1141-1146 (2012).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Tags

Porcine Adhesion ModelIntra-Abdominal AdhesionsPostoperative Adhesion FormationPeritoneal InjurySmall Bowel ResectionPrimary AnastomosisHistologic ScoringAdhesion FibrosisGross Adhesion AssessmentWound Healing Tissue