4.1 Article

Comparative Study of Histological Change After Local Treatments with Zinc Oxide, Infrared Rays, Ultraviolet Rays, and Cold Plasma in Rat Model of Diabetic Foot

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 1094-1099

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12262-020-02143-9

关键词

Zinc oxide; Ultraviolet; Infrared; Cold plasma; Wounds in diabetic rats

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study the first study that compared the effects of zinc oxide medicine, infrared, ultaviolet, and cold plasma treatment on full thickness infected wounds in diabetic rats. Moreover this is the first study that show the Pathological studies on visceral tissues (such as: testicles, livers, spleens, cardiac, and kidneys) after cold plasma treatment. The rats (14-15 weeks old and weight range of 200 +/- 10 g) was selected. Aloxan injection induced for diabetes induction. Anesthesia induced and a 10 mm round full thickness wound was made and then the wound infected with 1 ml Staphylococcus aureus. Rats were treated by zinc oxide, uv, infrared, cold plasma for 3,7,14, and 21 days. Samples were taken from visceral and skin and have been sent for histopathological analysis. After 3 days cold plasma treatment epithial cells start to migrate and collagen was seen in the dermis layer. After 7 days treatment the plasma treatment increased the neovascularization and production of collagen in the dermis layer. The infrared and uv treatment improved epithiatial formation, neovasular, fibroblat, and collagen proliferation but less than plasma treatment. After 14 days treatment the cold plasma treated wounds completely healed, while wound healing was observed after 21 days of the infrared and uv treatment. After 21 days zinc oxide treatment wounds were not completely healed. Pathological studies on visceral tissues shows that there were not any abnormal side effects due to helium plasma usage. The results showed a low wound healing after, UV, infrared, and zinc oxide treatment compared with the cold plasma treatment.

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

4.1
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