机构地区:[1]延安大学附属医院普外科,陕西延安716000
出 处:《中国普外基础与临床杂志》2018年第1期35-41,共7页Chinese Journal of Bases and Clinics In General Surgery
摘 要:目的探讨柳氮磺吡啶(SF)预防大鼠实验性肠粘连的效果及其机制。方法将40只大鼠随机分为假手术组(Sham组)、空白对照组(BC组)、透明质酸钠(HA)组、低剂量SF组(LSF组)和高剂量SF组(LSF组),每组8只大鼠。除Sham组外,BC组、HA组、LSF组和HSF组大鼠均使用盲肠搔刮方法造立肠粘连模型。建模后BC组大鼠不予特殊处理,HA组大鼠的搔刮面涂抹2 mL HA,LSF组和HSF组术后每日分别给予50 mg/kg和100 mg/kg SF灌胃,持续7 d(其余4组大鼠予以生理盐水灌胃)。于术后第7天,采用Nair’s评分系统评价5组大鼠的腹部粘连情况;取粘连组织行HE染色观察粘连组织的病理学改变,并进行炎症程度评分及纤维形成评分;取粘连组织行免疫组织化学染色以检测α-平滑肌肌动蛋白(α-SMA)的表达,并对不同表达程度赋予相应分值;采用酶联免疫吸附实验检测大鼠血清中的白介素-1β(IL-1β)和转化生长因子-β1(TGF-β1)浓度。结果 (1)肠粘连情况:Sham组大鼠仅有3只大鼠发生切口粘连;BC组有4只大鼠发生切口粘连,8只大鼠发生腹壁与盲肠壁粘连,2只大鼠发生肠管与内脏的粘连;HA组有2只大鼠发生切口粘连,5只大鼠发生腹壁与盲肠壁粘连;LSF组有2只大鼠发生切口粘连,6只大鼠发生腹壁与盲肠壁粘连,1只大鼠发生肠管与内脏粘连;HSF组有2只大鼠发生切口粘连,4只大鼠发生腹壁与盲肠壁粘连。与Sham组比较,其余4组大鼠的肠粘连评分均较高(P<0.05);与BC组比较,HA组、LSF组和HSF组大鼠的肠粘连评分均较低(P<0.05),但HA组、LSF组和HSF组大鼠的肠粘连评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(2)炎症程度评分和纤维形成评分:在炎症程度评分方面,与Sham组比较,其余4组大鼠的炎症程度评分均较高(P<0.05);与BC组比较,LSF组和HSF组大鼠的炎症程度评分均较低(P<0.05);与HA组比较,LSF组和HSF组大鼠的炎症程度评分均较低(P<0.05);与LSF组比较,HSF组大鼠的炎症程Objective To investigate the inhibition effect of salazosulfapyridine (SF) on the formation of postoperative abdominal adhesion and its possible mechanism. Methods Forty male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into five groups: sham operation group (Sham group), blank control group (BC group), sodium hyaluronate (HA) group, low dose of SF group (LSF group), and high dose of SF group (HSF group). Except the Sham group, all the rats in other 4 groups were created abdominal adhesion model by abrasion of caecum and its opposite abdominal wall. Rats of the BC group didn't received any treatment after model establishment. Before closing the abdominal wall, the rats of the HA group were treated by 2 mL HA. After the operation, the rats of the LSF group and the HSF group were daily orally administrated with different dose of SF (50 mg/kg for the LSF group and 100 mg/kg for the HSF group), while the other 3 groups treated with same dose of normal saline. Seven days after operation, the rats of 5 groups were killed and abdominal adhesion conditions was evaluated by Nair's score system. Then the abdominal adhesion tissues or blood were collected to underwent HE staining, immunohistochemistry staining, and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. The HE staining was used to assess the inflammation score and fibrillation score of rats in 5 groups and immunohistochemistry staining was used to evaluate expression of the a-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) in adhesion tissues. The ELISA test was used to detect the concentration of serum interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and transforming growth factor-β1(TGF-β1) in rats of 5 groups. Results (1) The gross evaluation of adhesion condition: 3 rats of the Sham groups had incision adhesion; in the BC group, 4 rats had incision adhesion, 8 rats had cecum to the abdominal wall adhesion, 2 rats had viscera to viscera adhesion; in the HA group, 2 rats had incision adhesion and 5 rats had cecum to the abdominal wall adhesion; in the
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...