The Journal of surgical research · 2007
The effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on healing of colonic anastomoses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Colak Tahsin, Turkmenoglu Ozgur, Dag Ahmet, Polat Ayse, Comelekoglu Ulku, Bagdatoglu Ozlen, Polat Gurbuz, Kanik Arzu, Akca Tamer, Aydin Suha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the potential protective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on delayed colonic anastomotic healing induced by remote ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) injury.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned into four groups, each consisting of 10 rats: the control group (C), the remote I/R group [I/R, 40 min of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) occlusion], the preconditioned I/R group (IPC, two cycles of 5 min temporary occlusion of SMA before an ischemic insult of 40 min), and the preconditioned group (PC, two cycles of 5 min temporary occlusion of SMA). Colonic anastomosis was performed immediately after the ischemic insult. Anastomotic healing was assessed on postoperative day 7 by determining anastomotic bursting pressure (ABP), tissue hydroxyproline content, histopathological examination, malondialdehyde (MDA), and nitric oxide levels.
RESULTS: Remote I/R injury resulted with significant impairment in anastomotic healing in terms of mean ABP (P = 0.004), hydroxyproline content (P = 0.002), histopathological healing score (P = 0.001), nitric oxide level (P = 0.010), and MDA levels (P = 0.0001) when compared with the control group, but remote IPC did not improve all above mentioned parameters (P = NS for all), except MDA level (P = 0.011) when compared with I/R group. PC alone impaired the ABP (P = 0.0001), but it did not significantly change the other parameters measured (P = NS).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that remote IPC did not prevent I/R-induced delaying in colonic anastomotic healing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned into four groups, each consisting of 10 rats: the control group (C), the remote I/R group [I/R, 40 min of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) occlusion], the preconditioned I/R group (IPC, two cycles of 5 min temporary occlusion of SMA before an ischemic insult of 40 min), and the preconditioned group (PC, two cycles of 5 min temporary occlusion of SMA). Colonic anastomosis was performed immediately after the ischemic insult. Anastomotic healing was assessed on postoperative day 7 by determining anastomotic bursting pressure (ABP), tissue hydroxyproline content, histopathological examination, malondialdehyde (MDA), and nitric oxide levels.
RESULTS: Remote I/R injury resulted with significant impairment in anastomotic healing in terms of mean ABP (P = 0.004), hydroxyproline content (P = 0.002), histopathological healing score (P = 0.001), nitric oxide level (P = 0.010), and MDA levels (P = 0.0001) when compared with the control group, but remote IPC did not improve all above mentioned parameters (P = NS for all), except MDA level (P = 0.011) when compared with I/R group. PC alone impaired the ABP (P = 0.0001), but it did not significantly change the other parameters measured (P = NS).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that remote IPC did not prevent I/R-induced delaying in colonic anastomotic healing.