Revue des maladies respiratoires · 2003
[Physiological effects of lung reduction surgery: the contribution of an animal model of emphysema].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание 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.
Marchand E, Gayan-Ramirez G, De Leyn P, Decramer M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a technique largely used for palliation of symptoms in selected patients with emphysema. Despite some encouraging early results, it is often still regarded as an experimental technique due to the significant associated mortality and unpredictable results.
STATE OF ART: The aim of this study was to explore the pathophysiological basis of benefit from LVRS when applied to a hamster model of emphysema induced by elastase and thus allow better selection criteria of patients being considered for this treatment.
PERSPECTIVES: Despite a positive effect on pulmonary elastic recoil pressures, LVRS did not, unlike its effects in humans, improve airway obstruction in the emphysematous hamsters. Differences in chest wall mechanics may explain these contrasting findings. Adaptation of the intrinsic and cellular properties of the diaphragm that are seen in emphysema are preserved after LVRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences with emphysema in humans, this hamster model supports the importance of the residual volume/total lung capacity ratio when selecting patients with emphysema for LVRS. The positive outcome of this intervention on the dynamics of the diaphragm is not compromised by modifications undergone by the diaphragmic myocytes.
STATE OF ART: The aim of this study was to explore the pathophysiological basis of benefit from LVRS when applied to a hamster model of emphysema induced by elastase and thus allow better selection criteria of patients being considered for this treatment.
PERSPECTIVES: Despite a positive effect on pulmonary elastic recoil pressures, LVRS did not, unlike its effects in humans, improve airway obstruction in the emphysematous hamsters. Differences in chest wall mechanics may explain these contrasting findings. Adaptation of the intrinsic and cellular properties of the diaphragm that are seen in emphysema are preserved after LVRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences with emphysema in humans, this hamster model supports the importance of the residual volume/total lung capacity ratio when selecting patients with emphysema for LVRS. The positive outcome of this intervention on the dynamics of the diaphragm is not compromised by modifications undergone by the diaphragmic myocytes.