4.5 Article

Comparison of Deferoxamine and Methylprednisolone Protective Effect of Pharmacological Agents on Lipid Peroxidation in Spinal Cord Injury in Rats

期刊

SPINE
卷 38, 期 26, 页码 E1649-E1655

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000055

关键词

spinal cord injury; deferoxamine; lipid peroxidation; methylprednisolone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. Experimental study. Objective. To investigate the protective effect of deferoxamine (DFO) administration in comparison with methylprednisolone (MP) on lipid peroxidation and antioxidants after spinal cord injury (SCI) in rats. Summary of Background Data. DFO is used for treating an iron-chelating agent, which is also used in the treatment of iron poisoning and thalassaemia. The neuroprotective effect of DFO was evaulated as a therapeutic agent for SCI. Methods. Forty Wistar rats were randomly divided into 5 groups as sham laminectomy (n = 8), laminectomy with SCI (n = 8), laminectomy with SCI and 0.9% saline intraperitoneal (i.p.) (n = 8), laminectomy with SCI and 30 mg/kg MP i.p. (n = 8), and laminectomy with SCI and 30 mg/kg DFO i.p. (n = 8). Neurological deficits were examined 24 hours after trauma, and all rats were killed. Spinal cord segments were harvested for both biochemical and histopathological evaluation. Results. At 24 hours post-SCI, whereas malondialdehyde levels were increased, superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase levels were decreased in groups I, II, and III. MP and DFO treatment decreased MDA levels and increased superoxide dismutase CAT, and glutathione peroxidase levels in control and study groups. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment with MP and DFO (P > 0.05). All rats were paraplegic after SCI, except in the sham group. Histopathological improvement was observed in control and study groups. Conclusion. This study indicates that beneficial effects may be provided and further studies need to investigate the dose-dependent beneficial and side effects of DFO in SCI.

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

4.5
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