4.5 Article

Three-Hour Argon Inhalation Has No Neuroprotective Effect after Open Traumatic Brain Injury in Rats

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070920

关键词

argon; neuroprotection; traumatic brain injury; organoprotection

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [FGWS-2022-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the therapeutic effects of a three-hour inhalation of argon after an open traumatic brain injury (TBI) in rats. The results showed that this treatment did not have a neuroprotective effect.
In vivo studies of the therapeutic effects of argon in traumatic brain injury (TBI) are limited, and their results are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a three-hour inhalation of argon (70%Ar/30%O-2) after an open TBI on the severity of the neurological deficit and the degree of brain damage in rats. The experiments were performed on male Wistar rats (n = 35). The TBI was simulated by the dosed open brain contusion injury. The animals were divided into three groups: sham-operated (SO, n = 7); TBI + 70%N2/30%O-2 (TBI, n = 14); TBI + 70%Ar/30%O-2 (TBI + iAr, n = 14). The Neurological status was assessed over a 14-day period (using the limb-placing and cylinder tests). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and a histological examination of the brain with an assessment of the volume of the lesions were performed 14 days after the injury. At each of the time points (days 1, 7, and 14), the limb-placing test score was lower in the TBI and TBI + iAr groups than in the SO group, while there were no significant differences between the TBI and TBI + iAr groups. Additionally, no differences were found between these groups in the cylinder test scores (day 13). The volume of brain damage (tissue loss) according to both the MRI and histological findings did not differ between the TBI and TBI + iAr groups. A three-hour inhalation of argon (70%Ar/30%O-2) after a TBI had no neuroprotective effect.

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