4.2 Article

Combined Effectiveness of Honey and Immunonutrition on Bacterial Translocation Secondary to Obstructive Jaundice in Rats: Experimental Study

期刊

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 3374-3381

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.907977

关键词

Bacterial Translocation; Honey; Intestines; Jaundice, Obstructive

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Obstructive jaundice is a serious, life-threatening condition that can lead to death as a result of sepsis and multiorgan failure due to bacterial translocation. Treatment should be started as soon as possible after diagnosis. Material/Methods: Forty 24-week-old male Sprague Dawley rats, with an average weight of 250 g to 300 g, were included in this study. The rats were randomly placed into five groups, each group consisted of eight rats. The sham group underwent only common bile duct (CBD) dissection and no ligation was performed. CBD ligation was applied to the other groups. After the operation, one CBD group was fed with rat chow only, the others were fed with rat chow supplemented with honey, or immunonutrients, or honey plus immunonutrients. After 10 to 12 days, all rats were sacrificed; blood and tissue samples were collected for biochemical, microbiological, and histopathological evaluation. Results: In the groups that were fed with honey and immunonutrients, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were de- creased significantly compared to the other groups. Statistically significant differences were detected in terms of bacterial translocation (BT) rates among liver and spleen samples, and laboratory values of serum, except for MLNs of the BDL+HI group, when compared to other groups. We found mean mucosal thickness of ileum samples have been improved notably in the BDL+HI group compared to the other groups, especially compared to the C/BDL group. Conclusions: Immunonutrition applied with honey had immunostimulant effects, decreased BT due to an additive effect, and had positive effects on intestinal mucosa.

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

4.2
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