4.4 Article

Comparison between coated vs. uncoated suture middle cerebral artery occlusion in the rat as assessed by perfusion/diffusion weighted imaging

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 412, 期 3, 页码 185-190

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.11.003

关键词

animal model; suture middle cerebral artery occlusion; focal cerebral ischernia; diffusion weighted imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; perfusion weighted imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differences among models in the temporal evolution of aschemia after middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) in rats may considerably influence the results of experimental treatment studies. Using diffusion and perfusion imaging, we compared the spatiotemporal evolution of ischemia in Sprague-Dawley rats after permanent MCAO (pMCAO) with different types of sutures. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to pMCAO produced with either 4-0 silicone coated (n=8), or 3-0 uncoated monofilaments (n=8). Serial determination of quantitative cerebral blood flow (CBF) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were performed up to 3 It after pMCAO. Lesion volumes were calculated by using previously validated thresholds and correlated with infarct volume corrected for edema defined by 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining at 24 h after MCAO. The ADC/CBF-defined mismatch volume in the 4-0 coated suture model was present significantly longer (up to 120 min) compared to the uncoated 3-0 suture model (30 min). The TTC-derived infarct volume was significantly larger in the coated model (290.3 +/- 32.8 mm(3)) relative to the uncoated model (252.3 +/- 34.6 in mm(3)). This study demonstrates that the type of suture may significantly influence the spatiotemporal evolution of the ADC/CBF-mismatch as well as the final infarct volume. These inter-model variations must be taken into account when assessing new therapeutic approaches on ischemic lesion evolution in the rat MCAO model. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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