4.1 Article

Effect of Postoperative Diclofenac on Anastomotic Healing, Skin Wounds and Subcutaneous Collagen Accumulation: A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Experimental Study

期刊

EUROPEAN SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 73-78

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000336208

关键词

Anastomotic leakage; Diclofenac; Hydroxyproline; Collagen; Wound healing; Breaking strength; Colonic anastomosis; Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene

类别

资金

  1. A.P. Moller Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Retrospective studies have drawn attention to possible detrimental effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the anastomotic leakage rate after colorectal resection. In this study, we examined the effects of the NSAID diclofenac on the breaking strength of an experimental colonic anastomosis and a skin incision as well as subcutaneous collagen accumulation. Methods: This was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled experimental study in 60 male Wistar rats treated with diclofenac 4 mg/kg/day or placebo. In each rat, a colonic anastomosis was performed and an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) tube was placed subcutaneously. Incisional and anastomotic wound breaking strength and hydroxyproline content in the ePTFE tubes were measured 7 days after the operation. Results: We found no significant differences in any of the breaking strength measurements, but showed a median 38% reduction in hydroxyproline deposition as a result of diclofenac treatment (p = 0.03). In the placebo group, subcutaneous collagen deposition tended to correlate positively with skin incisional but negatively with anastomotic biomechanical strength. Conclusion: Postoperative diclofenac treatment significantly inhibited collagen deposition in subcutaneous granulation tissue. Anastomotic strength and skin wound strength were not significantly affected. The ePTFE model is suitable for assessing the effect of various drugs on collagen formation and thus on wound healing. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

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