Vascular · 2015
Which type of conditioning method protects the spinal cord from the ischemia-reperfusion injury in 24 hours?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sapmaz Ali, Ulus A Tulga, Turan Nilüfer N, Kaymaz F Figen, Yazıcıoğlu Hija, Ersöz Siyar, Simsek Erdal, Köksoy Cüneyt
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to test the effects of different types of preconditioning and postconditioning methods on spinal cord protection following aortic clamping.
METHODS: The animals (rabbits) were divided into sham-operated, ischemic preconditioning, remote ischemic preconditioning, simultaneous aortic and ischemic remote preconditioning, and ischemic postconditioning groups. After neurological evaluations, ultrastructural analysis and immunohistochemical staining for caspase-3 were evaluated after 24 h following ischemia.
RESULTS: The neurological outcomes of the remote ischemic preconditioning (4.2 ± 0.4) and ischemic postconditioning (4.6 ± 0.8) groups were significantly improved when compared with the ischemia group (2.2 ± 04). The immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the lowest percentage of apoptosis was in-group ischemic preconditioning at 12.5 ± 30.6%. In the comparison of intracellular edema in an ultrastructural analysis, the ischemic preconditioning and ischemic postconditioning groups had significantly lower values than the ischemia group.
CONCLUSION: The conditioning methods attenuate ischemia-reperfusion injury for spinal cord injury. Ischemic and remote preconditioning and also postconditioning methods are simple to perform and inexpensive.
METHODS: The animals (rabbits) were divided into sham-operated, ischemic preconditioning, remote ischemic preconditioning, simultaneous aortic and ischemic remote preconditioning, and ischemic postconditioning groups. After neurological evaluations, ultrastructural analysis and immunohistochemical staining for caspase-3 were evaluated after 24 h following ischemia.
RESULTS: The neurological outcomes of the remote ischemic preconditioning (4.2 ± 0.4) and ischemic postconditioning (4.6 ± 0.8) groups were significantly improved when compared with the ischemia group (2.2 ± 04). The immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the lowest percentage of apoptosis was in-group ischemic preconditioning at 12.5 ± 30.6%. In the comparison of intracellular edema in an ultrastructural analysis, the ischemic preconditioning and ischemic postconditioning groups had significantly lower values than the ischemia group.
CONCLUSION: The conditioning methods attenuate ischemia-reperfusion injury for spinal cord injury. Ischemic and remote preconditioning and also postconditioning methods are simple to perform and inexpensive.