Literature DB >> 10656948

Time course of differences in lymphocyte proliferation rates after laparotomy vs CO(2) insufflation.

S W Lee1, J C Southall, N R Gleason, E H Huang, M Bessler, R L Whelan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our laboratory has previously demonstrated that cell-mediated immune function is significantly more suppressed after both laparotomy and laparoscopic-assisted bowel resection than after peritoneal insufflation or open bowel resection, as assessed by delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) response. The purpose of this study was to further evaluate cell-mediated immunity by examining lymphocyte proliferation rates after laparotomy vs CO(2) insufflation.
METHODS: Female Balb/C mice (n = 75) were randomly divided into the following three groups: (a) anesthesia control (A/C), (b) CO(2) insufflation (INS), and (c) sham laparotomy (OPEN). The A/C group mice underwent no procedure. The INS group underwent insufflation with CO(2) gas at 4-6 mmHg for 20 min. The OPEN group underwent a midline incision from xiphoid to pubic symphysis, which was clipped closed after 20 min. Splenocytes were obtained via splenic harvest and lymphocyte isolation on postoperative days (POD) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Lymphocyte proliferation was determined by a nonradioactive colorimetric MTS/PMS assay 72 h after concanavalin A stimulation.
RESULTS: The laparotomy group's lymphocyte proliferation rates were significantly lower than both the control and the insufflation groups on POD 2, POD 3, and POD 4. On POD 1 and POD 8, there were no significant differences in lymphocyte proliferation among the three groups. No differences were found between the control and insufflation groups at any point.
CONCLUSIONS: After stimulation, lymphocytes proliferate at a lower rate after laparotomy than after CO(2) insufflation. Significant differences in lymphocyte proliferation rates between groups persist at least through POD 4. By POD 8, the mean lymphocyte proliferation rate in the laparotomy group was back to the baseline level. Our results suggest greater immunosuppression after sham laparotomy than after CO(2) insufflation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10656948     DOI: 10.1007/s004649900087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  6 in total

Review 1.  Stress response to laparoscopic surgery: a review.

Authors:  M Buunen; M Gholghesaei; R Veldkamp; D W Meijer; H J Bonjer; N D Bouvy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Immunologic and oncologic implications of laparoscopic surgery: what is the latest?

Authors:  Sang W Lee; Richard L Whelan
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2006-02

3.  Peritoneal macrophage and blood monocyte functions after open and laparoscopic-assisted cecectomy in rats.

Authors:  S W Lee; D L Feingold; J J Carter; C Zhai; G Stapleton; N Gleason; R L Whelan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Laparoscopy as a prognostic factor in curative resection for node positive colorectal cancer: results for a single-institution nonrandomized prospective trial.

Authors:  L Capussotti; P Massucco; A Muratore; M Amisano; C Bima; D Zorzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Rectal mature teratoma: A case report.

Authors:  Jia-Li Liu; Ping-Liang Sun
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 1.534

6.  Postoperative colonic motility in patients following laparoscopic-assisted and open sigmoid colectomy.

Authors:  Michael S Kasparek; Mario H Müller; Jörg Glatzle; Klaus Manncke; Horst D Becker; Tilman T Zittel; Martin E Kreis
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.267

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.