4.6 Article

Optimizing Mouse Surgery with Online Rectal Temperature Monitoring and Preoperative Heat Supply. Effects on Post-Ischemic Acute Kidney Injury

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149489

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [AN372/11-2, AN372/23-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Body temperature affects outcomes of tissue injury. We hypothesized that online body core temperature recording and selective interventions help to standardize peri-interventional temperature control and the reliability of outcomes in experimental renal ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI). We recorded core temperature in up to seven mice in parallel using a Thermes USB recorder and ret-3-iso rectal probes with three different protocols. Setup A: Heating pad during ischemia time; Setup B: Heating pad from incision to wound closure; Setup C: A ventilated heating chamber before surgery and during ischemia time with surgeries performed on a heating pad. Temperature profile recording displayed significant declines upon installing anesthesia. The profile of the baseline experimental setup A revealed that <1% of the temperature readings were within the target range of 36.5 to 38.5 degrees C. Setup B and C increased the target range readings to 34.6 +/- 28.0% and 99.3 +/- 1.5%, respectively. Setup C significantly increased S3 tubular necrosis, neutrophil influx, and mRNA expression of kidney injury markers. In addition, using setup C different ischemia times generated a linear correlation with acute tubular necrosis parameters at a low variability, which further correlated with the degree of kidney atrophy 5 weeks after surgery. Changing temperature control setup A to C was equivalent to 10 minutes more ischemia time. We conclude that body temperature drops quickly in mice upon initiating anesthesia. Immediate heat supply, e.g. in a ventilated heating chamber, and online core temperature monitoring can help to standardize and optimize experimental outcomes.

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

4.6
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