AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightConclusion: None of the reduction methods in intussusception have superiority over others in preventing ischemia/reperfusion injury.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
To compare effects of contrast medium, air, and ozone on ischemia/reperfusion injury due to intussusception. Materials and methods: Thirty Wistar rats were allocated into five groups (n = 6). In the control group (CG), 2 cm of colonic segment, 5 cm distal to ileocecal valve, was removed. Intussusception was performed at 5 cm distal to the ileocecal valve by pushing a proximal intestinal segment distally by stile in experimental groups. One hour later, in the sham-operated group (SG), manual reduction was performed. In the reduction groups, reduction of intussusception was performed by contrast medium (CMG, 1/1 diluted omnipaqueR, infusion rate 2 mL/min), by air (AG, Pmax = 60 mmHg), or by ozone (OG, 10 µg/mL, 0.5 mg/kg, Pmax = 60 mmHg). One hour after reduction, 2 cm of colonic segment was removed. Colonic tissues were evaluated for histopathological grades and oxidative injury markers (malondialdehyde [MDA], nitric oxide [NO], and total sulfhydryl [T-SH] values). Results: Mucosal injury score was significantly higher in AG then in CG or SG (P < 0.05). There was no difference regarding mucosal injury between the other groups (P > 0.05). MDA levels were significantly higher and NO levels were significantly lower in CMG, OG, and AG than in CG (P < 0.05). There was no difference between OG and the other experimental groups in both MDA and NO levels (P > 0.05). Conclusion: None of the reduction methods in intussusception have superiority over others in preventing ischemia/reperfusion injury.
Özet
To compare effects of contrast medium, air, and ozone on ischemia/reperfusion injury due to intussusception. Materials and methods: Thirty Wistar rats were allocated into five groups (n = 6). In the control group (CG), 2 cm of colonic segment, 5 cm distal to ileocecal valve, was removed. Intussusception was performed at 5 cm distal to the ileocecal valve by pushing a proximal intestinal segment distally by stile in experimental groups. One hour later, in the sham-operated group (SG), manual reduction was performed. In the reduction groups, reduction of intussusception was performed by contrast medium (CMG, 1/1 diluted omnipaqueR, infusion rate 2 mL/min), by air (AG, Pmax = 60 mmHg), or by ozone (OG, 10 µg/mL, 0.5 mg/kg, Pmax = 60 mmHg). One hour after reduction, 2 cm of colonic segment was removed. Colonic tissues were evaluated for histopathological grades and oxidative injury markers (malondialdehyde [MDA], nitric oxide [NO], and total sulfhydryl [T-SH] values). Results: Mucosal injury score was significantly higher in AG then in CG or SG (P < 0.05). There was no difference regarding mucosal injury between the other groups (P > 0.05). MDA levels were significantly higher and NO levels were significantly lower in CMG, OG, and AG than in CG (P < 0.05). There was no difference between OG and the other experimental groups in both MDA and NO levels (P > 0.05). Conclusion: None of the reduction methods in intussusception have superiority over others in preventing ischemia/reperfusion injury.