Comparison between a weight compression and a magnet compression for experimental pressure ulcers in the rat. Histological studies and effects of anesthesia.

Q4 Medicine
Masakazu Hashimoto, Tomoyuki Kurose, Seiichi Kawamata
{"title":"Comparison between a weight compression and a magnet compression for experimental pressure ulcers in the rat. Histological studies and effects of anesthesia.","authors":"Masakazu Hashimoto,&nbsp;Tomoyuki Kurose,&nbsp;Seiichi Kawamata","doi":"10.1679/aohc.71.303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To develop an experimental model and evaluate the effects of the magnitude and duration of pressure, the rat abdominal wall (25x20 mm) was subjected to compression either by a weight or by two magnets. In the weight compression tests, a steel plate was inserted under anesthesia into the rat peritoneal cavity, and the abdominal wall was compressed in situ between the underlying steel plate and a weight placed on the abdominal wall. This method resulted in moderate changes in the subcutaneous connective tissue and muscle at 100 mmHg (13.3 kPa) for 4 h, while some muscle damage was observed at 50 mmHg (6.7 kPa) for 4 h and at 100 mmHg for 2 or 3 h. In the magnet pinching tests, a magnet was inserted into the peritoneal cavity, and another magnet overlaid on the skin. Then the abdominal wall was compressed by the two magnets with or without anesthesia. The compression without anesthesia produced significant edema and injuries of the abdominal wall at 50 mmHg for 4 h and at 100 mmHg for 3 or 4 h, while the injuries incurred at 100 mmHg for 2 h were mild. Susceptibility to pressure was high in the muscle, moderate in the subcutaneous connective tissue, and low in the skin. The compression with anesthesia produced significantly milder injuries than those under anesthesia. These findings indicate that the difference in the extent of injuries between the weight compression and magnet compression models are clearly attributable to the pentobarbital anesthesia induced during the compression. Results therefore show that experimental pressure ulcers should be examined in a waking condition and that magnet compression is a useful model for studying the pathogenesis of pressure ulcers.</p>","PeriodicalId":8307,"journal":{"name":"Archives of histology and cytology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1679/aohc.71.303","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of histology and cytology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1679/aohc.71.303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

To develop an experimental model and evaluate the effects of the magnitude and duration of pressure, the rat abdominal wall (25x20 mm) was subjected to compression either by a weight or by two magnets. In the weight compression tests, a steel plate was inserted under anesthesia into the rat peritoneal cavity, and the abdominal wall was compressed in situ between the underlying steel plate and a weight placed on the abdominal wall. This method resulted in moderate changes in the subcutaneous connective tissue and muscle at 100 mmHg (13.3 kPa) for 4 h, while some muscle damage was observed at 50 mmHg (6.7 kPa) for 4 h and at 100 mmHg for 2 or 3 h. In the magnet pinching tests, a magnet was inserted into the peritoneal cavity, and another magnet overlaid on the skin. Then the abdominal wall was compressed by the two magnets with or without anesthesia. The compression without anesthesia produced significant edema and injuries of the abdominal wall at 50 mmHg for 4 h and at 100 mmHg for 3 or 4 h, while the injuries incurred at 100 mmHg for 2 h were mild. Susceptibility to pressure was high in the muscle, moderate in the subcutaneous connective tissue, and low in the skin. The compression with anesthesia produced significantly milder injuries than those under anesthesia. These findings indicate that the difference in the extent of injuries between the weight compression and magnet compression models are clearly attributable to the pentobarbital anesthesia induced during the compression. Results therefore show that experimental pressure ulcers should be examined in a waking condition and that magnet compression is a useful model for studying the pathogenesis of pressure ulcers.

重量加压与磁体加压治疗实验性压疮之比较。麻醉的组织学研究和效果。
为了建立实验模型并评估压力大小和持续时间的影响,我们对大鼠腹壁(25x20 mm)施加重量或两个磁铁的压迫。在重量压缩试验中,在麻醉下将钢板插入大鼠腹膜腔,腹壁在钢板和放置在腹壁上的重物之间被原位压缩。该方法在100 mmHg (13.3 kPa)下持续4小时,皮下结缔组织和肌肉出现中度变化,而在50 mmHg (6.7 kPa)下持续4小时,在100 mmHg下持续2或3小时,观察到一些肌肉损伤。在磁铁夹紧试验中,将一块磁铁插入腹腔,另一块磁铁覆盖在皮肤上。然后在麻醉或不麻醉的情况下,用两块磁铁压迫腹壁。未麻醉的压迫在50mmhg下持续4小时,在100mmhg下持续3或4小时,腹壁出现明显水肿和损伤,而在100mmhg下持续2小时的损伤是轻微的。肌肉对压力的敏感性高,皮下结缔组织的敏感性中等,皮肤的敏感性低。麻醉压迫组的损伤明显轻于麻醉压迫组。这些研究结果表明,重量压缩和磁铁压缩模型之间的损伤程度差异明显归因于压缩过程中诱导的戊巴比妥麻醉。结果表明,实验性压疮应在清醒状态下检查,磁体压迫是研究压疮发病机制的有效模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of histology and cytology
Archives of histology and cytology 生物-细胞生物学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Archives of Histology and Cytology provides prompt publication in English of original works on the histology and histochemistry of man and animals. The articles published are in principle restricted to studies on vertebrates, but investigations using invertebrates may be accepted when the intention and results present issues of common interest to vertebrate researchers. Pathological studies may also be accepted, if the observations and interpretations are deemed to contribute toward increasing knowledge of the normal features of the cells or tissues concerned. This journal will also publish reviews offering evaluations and critical interpretations of recent studies and theories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信