MedElevator
Войти в исследования HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2019
Normal and fibrotic liver parenchyma respond differently to irreversible electroporation.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Lyu Chenang, Lopez-Ichikawa Maya, Rubinsky Boris, Chang Tammy T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in treating hepatic, biliary, and pancreatic malignancies are active areas of clinical investigation. In addition, recent studies have shown that IRE may enable regenerative surgery and in vivo tissue engineering. To use IRE effectively in these clinical applications, it is important to understand how different tissue microenvironments impact the response to IRE. In this study, we characterize the electrical and histological properties of non-fibrotic and fibrotic liver parenchyma before and after IRE treatment.
METHODS: Electrical resistivity and histology of fibrotic liver from C57BL/6 mice fed a 0.1% 3,5-diethylcarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine (DDC) diet were compared to those of non-fibrotic liver from matched control mice before and after IRE treatment.
RESULTS: At baseline, the electrical resistivity of fibrotic liver was lower than that of non-fibrotic liver. Post-IRE, resistivity of non-fibrotic liver declined and then recovered back to baseline with time, correlating with hepatocyte repopulation of the ablated parenchyma without deposition of fibrotic scar. In contrast, resistivity of fibrotic liver remained depressed after IRE treatment, correlating with persistent inflammation.
CONCLUSION: Non-fibrotic and fibrotic liver respond to IRE differently. The underlying tissue microenvironment is an important modifying factor to consider when designing IRE protocols for tissue ablation.
METHODS: Electrical resistivity and histology of fibrotic liver from C57BL/6 mice fed a 0.1% 3,5-diethylcarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine (DDC) diet were compared to those of non-fibrotic liver from matched control mice before and after IRE treatment.
RESULTS: At baseline, the electrical resistivity of fibrotic liver was lower than that of non-fibrotic liver. Post-IRE, resistivity of non-fibrotic liver declined and then recovered back to baseline with time, correlating with hepatocyte repopulation of the ablated parenchyma without deposition of fibrotic scar. In contrast, resistivity of fibrotic liver remained depressed after IRE treatment, correlating with persistent inflammation.
CONCLUSION: Non-fibrotic and fibrotic liver respond to IRE differently. The underlying tissue microenvironment is an important modifying factor to consider when designing IRE protocols for tissue ablation.