4.1 Article

The effect of dexmedetomidine on gastric ischemia reperfusion injury in rats. Biochemical and histopathological evaluation

期刊

ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/ACB360104

关键词

Reperfusion Injury; Oxidative Stress; Dexmedetomidine; Stomach; Rats

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the protective effect of dexmedetomidine on gastric injury induced by ischemia reperfusion in rats. Results showed that dexmedetomidine prevented oxidative damage on the stomach by increasing the antioxidant effect, suggesting its potential usefulness in the treatment of ischemia-reperfusion-related gastric damage.
Purpose: To evaluate the protective effect of dexmedetomidine on gastric injury induced by ischemia reperfusion (I/R) in rats. Methods: A total of 18 male albino Wistar rats were divided groups as: gastric ischemia reperfusion (GIR), gastric ischemia reperfusion and 50 mu g/kg dexmedetomidine (DGIR) and sham operation (HG) group. After the third hour of reperfusion, the biochemical and histopathological examinations were performed on the removed stomach tissue. Results: Malondialdehyde (MDA) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) levels were found to be significantly higher in GIR compared to HG (p < 0.05). A statistically significant decrease was observed at the DGIR compared to the GIR for oxidants levels. Total glutathione (tGSH) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels were statistically significantly decreased at the GIR, and antioxidants levels were found to be significantly higher in the DGIR (p < 0.05) There was no significant difference between HG and DGIR in terms of SOD (p = 0.097). The DGIRs' epitheliums, glands and vascular structures were close to normal histological formation. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine is found to prevent oxidative damage on the stomach by increasing the antioxidant effect. These results indicate that dexmedetomidine may be useful in the treatment of ischemia-reperfusion-related gastric damage.

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

4.1
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