Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2018
Prevention of Chlorhexidine Ototoxicity With Poloxamer in Rats.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Dirain Carolyn O, Vasquez Taylor K, Antonelli Patrick J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Skin preparations, like chlorhexidine, are toxic to the inner ear, preventing their use as a preoperative skin disinfectant in the presence of a nonintact eardrum (e.g., perforation or tube). We aimed to determine if a poloxamer gel applied over perforated eardrums could prevent chlorhexidine ototoxicity.
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled, in vivo.
SETTING: Academic research laboratory.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Bilateral myringotomies were performed on 20 Sprague-Dawley rats. Half had poloxamer placed over both eardrums before treatment. All rats had chlorhexidine instilled in one ear and saline in the other. Auditory brainstem response thresholds were measured before and 2- and 4-weeks posttreatment. Cochlear hair cell damage was assessed using scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS: Ears with chlorhexidine without poloxamer had significant hearing loss, 37 to 50 dB worse than the other three ear treatments at 2 and 4 weeks posttreatment, at all tested frequencies (4, 18, 16, and 24 kHz; all p < 0.0001). No significant hearing loss was observed in ears that were treated with poloxamer and chlorhexidine (-2 to 8 dB) and the results were not different from the ears that received saline, with or without poloxamer (-2.5 to 8 dB and 5-17 dB; p > 0.05). Electron microscopy showed far more outer hair cell damage in the no poloxamer + chlorhexidine ears compared with the other three treatments.
CONCLUSION: The use of a poloxamer barrier may be an effective approach to prevent ototoxicity before chlorhexidine disinfection of the ear with a nonintact tympanic membrane.
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled, in vivo.
SETTING: Academic research laboratory.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Bilateral myringotomies were performed on 20 Sprague-Dawley rats. Half had poloxamer placed over both eardrums before treatment. All rats had chlorhexidine instilled in one ear and saline in the other. Auditory brainstem response thresholds were measured before and 2- and 4-weeks posttreatment. Cochlear hair cell damage was assessed using scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS: Ears with chlorhexidine without poloxamer had significant hearing loss, 37 to 50 dB worse than the other three ear treatments at 2 and 4 weeks posttreatment, at all tested frequencies (4, 18, 16, and 24 kHz; all p < 0.0001). No significant hearing loss was observed in ears that were treated with poloxamer and chlorhexidine (-2 to 8 dB) and the results were not different from the ears that received saline, with or without poloxamer (-2.5 to 8 dB and 5-17 dB; p > 0.05). Electron microscopy showed far more outer hair cell damage in the no poloxamer + chlorhexidine ears compared with the other three treatments.
CONCLUSION: The use of a poloxamer barrier may be an effective approach to prevent ototoxicity before chlorhexidine disinfection of the ear with a nonintact tympanic membrane.