4.4 Article

Topical application of nitrosonifedipine, a novel radical scavenger, ameliorates ischemic skin flap necrosis in a mouse model

期刊

WOUND REPAIR AND REGENERATION
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 217-223

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12510

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP16K20360]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K20360, 15K01716, 15H02898] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemic skin flap necrosis can occur in random pattern flaps. An excess amount of reactive oxygen species is generated and causes necrosis in the ischemic tissue. Nitrosonifedipine (NO-NIF) has been demonstrated to possess potent radical scavenging ability. However, there has been no study on the effects of NO-NIF on ischemic skin flap necrosis. Therefore, they evaluated the potential of NO-NIF in ameliorating ischemic skin flap necrosis in a mouse model. A random pattern skin flap (1.0 x 3.0 cm) was elevated on the dorsum of C57BL/6 mice. NO-NIF was administered by topical injection immediately after surgery and every 24 hours thereafter. Flap survival was evaluated on postoperative day 7. Tissue samples from the skin flaps were harvested on postoperative days 1 and 3 to analyze oxidative stress, apoptosis and endothelial dysfunction. The viable area of the flap in the NO-NIF group was significantly increased (78.30 +/- 7.041%) compared with that of the control group (47.77 +/- 6.549%, p<0.01). NO-NIF reduced oxidative stress, apoptosis and endothelial dysfunction, which were evidenced by the decrease of malondialdehyde, p22phox protein expression, number of apoptotic cells, phosphorylated p38 MAPK protein expression, and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 protein expression while endothelial nitric oxide synthase protein expression was increased. In conclusion, they demonstrated that NO-NIF ameliorated ischemic skin flap necrosis by reducing oxidative stress, apoptosis, and endothelial dysfunction. NO-NIF is considered to be a candidate for the treatment of ischemic flap necrosis.

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

4.4
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