3.9 Article

Effect of Application Site of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Random Cutaneous Flap Viability in Rats

期刊

PHOTOMEDICINE AND LASER SURGERY
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 411-416

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/pho.2008.2320

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effect of diode laser (830 nm) irradiation on the viability of ischemic random skin flaps in rats, as well as to determine the most effective site for applying laser radiation to speed healing. Background Data: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has recently been used to improve the viability of ischemic random skin flaps in rats. Materials and Methods: Seventy Wistar rats were used and divided into seven groups of 10 rats each: group 1, sham laser treatment; group 2, which received irradiation at 1 point 5 cm from the flap's cranial base; group 3, which received irradiation at 2 points (5 and 7.5 cm from the flap's base); group 4, which received irradiation at 3 points (2.5, 5 and 7.5 cm from the flap's base); group 5, which received irradiation at 1 point 2.5 cm from the flap's base; group 6, which received irradiation at 2 points (2.5 and 5 cm from the flap's base); and group 7, which received irradiation at 1 point 7.5 cm from the flap's base. The animals were subjected to laser therapy at an energy density of 36 J/cm(2) for 72 sec immediately after surgery, and one time on each of the four subsequent days. The percentage of necrotic skin flap area was calculated on the seventh postoperative day using a paper template. Results: The results showed that the rats in group 5 had the highest increase in skin flap viability, with a statistically significant difference compared to the other groups. Statistically significant differences were not seen between any of the other groups. Conclusion: The diode laser was effective in increasing skin flap viability in rats, and laser irradiation of a point 2.5 cm from the cranial base flap was found to be the most effective.

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

3.9
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