4.2 Article

Matrix Metaloproteinase-2 and-9 Serum Levels as Potential Markers of Intraperitoneal Adhesions

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 134-140

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/08941939.2012.730599

关键词

Intraperitoneal adhesions; matrix metalloproteinases-2 and-9; icodextrin 4%; dimetindene maleate; prognostic markers

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the value of matrix metalloproteinases-2 (MMP-2) and -9 (MMP-9) as prognostic serum markers for intraperitoneal adhesions. Background: Postoperative adhesions are associated with serious complications responsible for increased patient'smorbidity. Methods: Forty-eight rabbits were used and randomized into groups A, B, C, and D. Abdominal laparotomy and experimental adhesion formation model was carried out. In group A, 60 mL of N/S 0.9% were instilled intraperitoneally, in group B 60 mL of icodextrin 4% were instilled intraperitoneally, in group C 0.1 mL/kg of dimetindene maleate were administered intravenously, and in group D both agents were administered. Prior to euthanasia 0.5 mL of blood was obtained. The type, the surface area of adhesions, and serum concentration of MMPs were assessed. Results: The mean surface area and Zuhlke classification of adhesions of groups B, C, andDhas been proved to be significantly lower compared to group A. Serum MMP-2 levels were significantly higher in groups B and D than in group A, while group D was higher when compared to group C. Serum MMP-9 levels were significantly higher in group D compared to groups A, B, and C. Serum MMP-9 was the most accurate test to differentiate between animals with and without adhesions with a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 100% at a cut-off point of 21.5 (AUC = 0.934). Conclusions: The administration of icodextrin 4% and dimetindene maleate seems to prevent postoperative adhesion formation. Serum levels of MMP-2 and MMP-9 may serve as prognostic markers to identify postoperative adhesions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据