4.4 Article

Impact of gradual blood flow increase on ischaemia-reperfusion injury in the rat cremaster microcirculation model

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2007.05.017

关键词

gradual; ischaemia; reperfusion; microcirculation

类别

资金

  1. Gazi University, Department of Scientific Research Projects [1/2004-41]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the impact of gradual blood reperfusion on ischaemia-reperfusion injury and to explain the pathophysiology of reperfusion injury in a rat cremaster muscle microcirculation model. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four Sprague-Dawley rats weighing 150-200 g were evaluated in three groups. Cremaster muscles were prepared for microcirculatory observations. Group I (n = 8, control): no ischemia was induced. Group II (n = 8, acute reperfusion): microclamps were applied to the right external iliac vessels for 150 min, then venous and arterial clamps were released at once. Group III (n = 8, gradual reperfusion): microclamps were applied to the right external iliac vessels for 150 min, and then the first venous clamp was released; the arterial clamp was opened gradually by a specially designed microclamp holder (Sheey ossicle holding clamp). In all groups, following a wait of 150 min blood flow velocity was measured for 15 min and then the animals were reperfused freely for 1 h. Next, red blood cell velocity, vessel diameters, functional capillary perfusion and endothelial oedema index were analysed, and rotting, migrating and adhesing leukocytes and lymphocytes were counted. At( observations were videotaped for slow-motion replay. Muscle damage was evaluated histotogically. Results: In the acute clamp release group, blood velocities increased up to 600% of their preischaemic values during the post-ischaemia-reperfusion period. The numbers of rotting, adhering and transmigrating leukocytes were significantly higher and histological evaluation revealed more tissue damage in the acute reperfusion group.

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

4.4
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