4.2 Article

Efficacy of N-Acetylcysteine on Wound Healing of Nasal Mucosa

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages E422-E426

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001880

Keywords

N-Acetylcysteine; nasal mucosa; wound healing

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Postoperative nasal mucosa healing is a highly complex and organized process, and the success rates of endoscopic sinus surgery and septoplasty surgeries are closely associated with the postoperative wound healing processes. In this experimental study, the authors' aim was to use histopathologic examination to investigate the effects of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) on the wound healing of rat nasal mucosa after mechanical trauma. Twenty-one Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into 3 groups: the nontreated group (N = 7), the control saline group (N = 7), and the NAC group (N = 7). No treatment was given to the nontreated group for 15 days. The control saline group received intraperitoneal injection of saline (2.5 mL/kg, intraperitoneal) for 15 days and the NAC group was intraperitoneally injected with NAC at a dose of 300 mg/kg/day for 15 days. At the beginning of the study, unilateral mechanical nasal trauma was induced with an interdental brush inserted through the right nostril in all rats. Samples were stained using hematoxylin and eosin solution, and were examined by a pathologist using a light microscope. The severity of inflammation was milder in the NAC group compared with that in the nontreated and saline groups (P < 0.05). The subepithelial thickness index was lower in the experimental group (P < 0.05). Goblet cell loss was reduced in the experimental group compared with the nontreated and saline groups (P < 0.05). NAC decreases inflammation and goblet cell loss. Therefore, NAC has potential beneficial effects on the wound healing of nasal mucosa in rats.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available