4.5 Article

Blast Overpressure in Rats: Recreating a Battlefield Injury in the Laboratory

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 827-840

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2008.0748

关键词

axonal injury; blast; hemorrhage; learning and memory; protective vest; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blast injury to the brain is the predominant cause of neurotrauma in current military conflicts, and its etiology is largely undefined. Using a compression-driven shock tube to simulate blast effects, we assessed the physiological, neuropathological, and neurobehavioral consequences of airblast exposure, and also evaluated the effect of a Kevlar (R) protective vest on acute mortality in rats and on the occurrence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in those that survived. This approach provides survivable blast conditions under which TBI can be studied. Striking neuropathological changes were caused by both 126- and 147-kPa airblast exposures. The Kevlar vest, which encased the thorax and part of the abdomen, greatly reduced airblast mortality, and also ameliorated the widespread fiber degeneration that was prominent in brains of rats not protected by a vest during exposure to a 126-kPa airblast. This finding points to a significant contribution of the systemic effects of airblast to its brain injury pathophysiology. Airblast of this intensity also disrupted neurologic and neurobehavioral performance (e. g., beam walking and spatial navigation acquisition in the Morris water maze). When immediately followed by hemorrhagic hypotension, with MAP maintained at 30 mm Hg, airblast disrupted cardiocompensatory resilience, as reflected by reduced peak shed blood volume, time to peak shed blood volume, and time to death. These findings demonstrate that shock tube-generated airblast can cause TBI in rats, in part through systemic mediation, and that the resulting brain injury significantly impacts acute cardiovascular homeostatic mechanisms as well as neurobehavioral function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据