RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate protective effects of dexmedetomidine, calcitriol and their combination. METHODS: Forty Wistar-albino rats were divided into 4 groups; group of Sham (Group Sham); group of dexmedetomidine (Group DEX); group of calcitriol (Group CAL) and group of dexmedetomidineandcalcitriol (Group DEX-CAL). Photographic analysis was used for macroscopic analysis and perfusion analyses were evaluated by scintigraphy. Additionally, tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant status (TOS) and total antioxidant activity (TAS) were recorded and oxidative stress index (OSI) was calculated. Each flap was assessed by histopathology. RESULTS: Compared to Group Sham, the viable flap areas were higher in all treatment groups both by photographic image analyses and perfusion analyses (p<0.05). Group DEX-CAL had the highest viable flap percentage both in scintigraphic and photographic analyses; whereas Group Sham had the lowest viable flap percentage. Similarly, TAS and MDA levels were elevated and TOS levels were declined in all treatment groups compared to Group Sham (p<0.005). Histopathological analysis at flap demarcation zone confirmed neovascularization was significantly higher and edema, necrosis and inflammation were significantly lower in all treatment groups compared to Group Sham. CONCLUSION: The outcomes show that additional premedication with either dexmedetomidine or calcitriol or their combination reduces ischemia-reperfusion injury of flap area and show significant increase in the percentage of viable flap tissue.
Asunto(s)
Calcitriol , Dexmedetomidina , Daño por Reperfusión , Colgajos Quirúrgicos , Animales , Calcitriol/farmacología , Dexmedetomidina/farmacología , Ratas , Ratas WistarRESUMEN
Purpose: To evaluate protective effects of dexmedetomidine, calcitriol and their combination. Methods: Forty Wistar-albino rats were divided into 4 groups; group of Sham (Group Sham); group of dexmedetomidine (Group DEX); group of calcitriol (Group CAL) and group of dexmedetomidineandcalcitriol (Group DEX-CAL). Photographic analysis was used for macroscopic analysis and perfusion analyses were evaluated by scintigraphy. Additionally, tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant status (TOS) and total antioxidant activity (TAS) were recorded and oxidative stress index (OSI) was calculated. Each flap was assessed by histopathology. Results: Compared to Group Sham, the viable flap areas were higher in all treatment groups both by photographic image analyses and perfusion analyses (p 0.05). Group DEX-CAL had the highest viable flap percentage both in scintigraphic and photographic analyses; whereas Group Sham had the lowest viable flap percentage. Similarly, TAS and MDA levels were elevated and TOS levels were declined in all treatment groups compared to Group Sham (p 0.005). Histopathological analysis at flap demarcation zone confirmed neovascularization was significantly higher and edema, necrosis and inflammation were significantly lower in all treatment groups compared to Group Sham. Conclusion: The outcomes show that additional premedication with either dexmedetomidine or calcitriol or their combination reduces ischemia-reperfusion injury of flap area and show significant increase in the percentage of viable flap tissue.(AU)
Asunto(s)
Animales , Ratas , Dexmedetomidina/administración & dosificación , Calcitriol/administración & dosificación , Isquemia/tratamiento farmacológico , Isquemia/veterinaria , Daño por Reperfusión/tratamiento farmacológico , Daño por Reperfusión/veterinariaRESUMEN
Abstract Purpose: To evaluate protective effects of dexmedetomidine, calcitriol and their combination. Methods: Forty Wistar-albino rats were divided into 4 groups; group of Sham (Group Sham); group of dexmedetomidine (Group DEX); group of calcitriol (Group CAL) and group of dexmedetomidineandcalcitriol (Group DEX-CAL). Photographic analysis was used for macroscopic analysis and perfusion analyses were evaluated by scintigraphy. Additionally, tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant status (TOS) and total antioxidant activity (TAS) were recorded and oxidative stress index (OSI) was calculated. Each flap was assessed by histopathology. Results: Compared to Group Sham, the viable flap areas were higher in all treatment groups both by photographic image analyses and perfusion analyses (p<0.05). Group DEX-CAL had the highest viable flap percentage both in scintigraphic and photographic analyses; whereas Group Sham had the lowest viable flap percentage. Similarly, TAS and MDA levels were elevated and TOS levels were declined in all treatment groups compared to Group Sham (p<0.005). Histopathological analysis at flap demarcation zone confirmed neovascularization was significantly higher and edema, necrosis and inflammation were significantly lower in all treatment groups compared to Group Sham. Conclusion: The outcomes show that additional premedication with either dexmedetomidine or calcitriol or their combination reduces ischemia-reperfusion injury of flap area and show significant increase in the percentage of viable flap tissue.