Brito MVH, Yasojima EY, Machado AA, Silveira MPPR, Teixeira RKC, Yamaki VN, Costa FLDS. DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS OF POSTCONDITIONING DOES NOT ATTENUATE MESENTERIC ISCHEMIA-REPERFUSION INJURY AFTER SHORT-TERM REPERFUSION.
ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CIRURGIA DIGESTIVA : ABCD = BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY 2017;
30:27-29. [PMID:
28489164 PMCID:
PMC5424682 DOI:
10.1590/0102-6720201700010008]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2016] [Accepted: 01/10/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Background
Mesenteric ischemia is a challenging diagnosis. Delay in diagnosis can lead to extent bowel necrosis and poor outcomes. Ischemia and reperfusion syndrome plays an important role in this scenario.
Aim
To access effects of different post-conditioning cycles on mesenteric ischemia-reperfusion syndrome.
Method
Twenty-five rats were assigned into five groups: Sham, used to establish normal parameters; control group, submitted to mesenteric ischemia for 30 min; in groups GP3, GP1 and GP30, ischemia was followed by post-conditioning protocol, which consisted of 1 cycle of 3 min (GP3), 3 cycles of 1 min (GP1) or 6 cycles of 30 s (GP30), respectively. Ileum samples were harvested after one hour of reperfusion. Intestinal mucosal injury was evaluated through histopathological analysis.
Results
The average of mesenteric injury degree was 0 in the sham group, 3.6 in the control group, 3.4 in GP3, 3.2 in GP1, and 3.0 in GP30; villous length average was 161.59 in sham group, 136.27 in control group, 135.89 in GP3, 129.46 in GP1, and 135.18 in GP30. Was found significant difference between sham and other groups (p<0.05); however, there was no difference among post-conditioning groups.
Conclusion
Post-conditioning adopted protocols were not able to protect intestinal mucosa integrity after mesenteric ischemia and short term reperfusion.
Collapse