AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThis protective effect requiresfurther detailed experimental and clinical studies.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
Objective: One of the methods that can be used to prevent ischaemia reperfusion (IR) injury is ischaemic preconditioning. The aim ofthis study was to evaluate and compare the effects of remote and direct ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC and DIPC) histopathologicallyin the rat renal IR injury model.Methods: After obtaining an approval from the Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine Ethics Committee, 28 Wistar Albino malerats were divided into four groups. In Group I (Sham, n=7), laparotomy and left renal pedicle dissection were performed, but nothingelse was done. In Group II (IR, n=7), after 45 minutes of left renal pedicle occlusion, reperfusion lasting 4 hours was performed. InGroup III (DIPC+IR, n=7), after four cycles of ischaemic preconditioning applied to the left kidney, renal IR was performed. In GroupIV (RIPC+IR, n=7), after three cycles of ischaemic preconditioning applied to the left hind leg, renal IR was performed. All rats weresacrificed, and the left kidney was processed for conventional histopathology.Results: The histopathological injury score of the kidney was significantly lower in the sham group compared with the other groups(p<0.01). The injury scores of the DIPC+IR and RIPC+IR groups were significantly lower than in the IR group (p<0.05). In the RIPC+IR group, the injury score for erythrocyte extravasation was found to be significantly lower than in the DIPC+IR group (p<0.05).Conclusion: In the present study, it was demonstrated that both DIPC and RIPC decreased renal IR injury, but RIPC was found to bemore effective than DIPC. This protective effect requiresfurther detailed experimental and clinical studies.