大鼠神经病理痛模型的两种不同制备方法效果比较  

Comparison the effect of the two models of neuropathic pain

作　　者：王向东 万丽萍 李晴[2] 张晓丹 周洁 刘曾旭[2] 

机构地区：[1]江西卫生职业学院,南昌330052 [2]南昌大学江西医学院解剖教研室,南昌330001

出　　处：《中国临床药理学杂志》2016年第8期707-709,共3页The Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

基　　金：国家自然科学基金资助项目(81260190);江西省卫生厅科技计划基金资助项目(20131008)

摘　　要：目的制备并比较肠线结扎法(模型A组)和针头间隔-肠线结扎法(模型B组)的大鼠慢性坐骨神经压迫性损伤模型(CCI)效果。方法分别制作假手术组、模型A组和模型B组动物模型,于术后7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21 d,测定机械缩足痛阈(MWT)和热缩足潜伏期(TWL),进行组间比较,评价造模效果。结果与假手术组相比,两种方法造模后,大鼠MWT和TWL均显著下降(P<0.01),提示造模成功。与模型A组相比,B组成功率高、动物机械痛阈显著下降(均P<0.01)。结论两种方法都能制备满意的神经病理痛大鼠模型,但模型B组明显优于模型A组。Objective To establish the chronic constriction injury model（CCI） rat model by catgut（group A） and by catgut including the needle（group B） and compare the effects of two methods. Methods Fourty-five SD rats were randomized into sham-operated group,group A and group B. The mechanical with drawl threshold（MWT） and thermal with drawl latency（TWL） were measured to detect the effect of CCI rat model on the day of 7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21 after operation. Results The mechanical and thermal pain threshold in group A and group B were both lower than those in sham-operated group（P〈0. 01）,which showed the success of CCI model. The success rate in group B was higher than that in group A and the mechanical with drawl threshold significantly decreased than that in group A（P〈0. 01）. Conclusion The rat model of neuropathic pain could be prepared by two methods,but group B were significantly better than group A.

关 键 词：神经病理痛 动物模型 坐骨神经压迫损伤 

分 类 号：R97[医药卫生—药品]