| Literature DB >> 24270956 |
Marcelo Rezende1, Edna Frasson de Souza Montero, Reinaldo Salomão, Milena Brunialti, Rodrigo Rodrigues, Gustavo Gomes, Alice Della Libera, Angelo Ferrari, Ermelindo Della Libera.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of transgastric peritoneal access on plasma biomarkers of acute inflammatory response in comparison to laparoscopy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24270956 PMCID: PMC3812549 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2013(11)09
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Weight, rectal temperature, surgical time and anesthesia time of the animals used in this study.
| Sham | NOTES | Laparoscopy | Laparotomy | ||
| n = 6 | n = 12 | n = 8 | n = 8 | ||
| Weight (kg) | 32.6 (1.1) | 33.7 (0.8) | 34.6 (1.2) | 32.7 (1.1) | NS |
| Temperature (°C) | 37.6 (0.2) | 37.4 (0.1) | 37.6 (0.3) | 37.4 (0.2) | NS |
| Surgical time (min) | - | 57.4 (4.5) | 20.8 (3.7) | 39.9 (3.6) | <0.001 |
| Anesthesia time (min) | 96.7 (5.7) | 97.2 (8.4) | 88.1 (1.9) | 93.2 (3.1) | NS |
Data are expressed as means (standard deviations). *: One-way ANOVA; Bonferroni-adjusted test indicated a significant difference among all of the groups; NS: not significant.
Postoperative recovery score.
| Postoperative | Sham | NOTES | Laparoscopy | Laparotomy | |
| n = 6 | n = 12 | n = 8 | n = 8 | ||
| T3 | 3 (2-3) | 2 (1-3) | 3 (2-3) | 2 (2-2) | <0.05 |
| T9 | 3 (2-3) | 3 (2-3) | 3 (3-3) | 2 (2-3) | <0.05 |
| T24 | 3 (2-3) | 3 (2-3) | 3 (3-3) | 2 (2-3) | <0.05 |
T3, T9 and T24: 3, 9 and 24 h after procedure. Data are expressed as medians (minimum and maximum values). *: Kruskal-Wallis test.
Complete blood count measurements at T0 and T24.
| Time (hours) | Sham | NOTES | Laparoscopy | Laparotomy | ||
| n = 6 | n = 12 | n = 8 | n = 8 | |||
| 0 | 31.9 (0.8) | 30.9 (1.0) | 34.9 (1.1) | 31.9 (0.8) | NS | |
| 24 | 33.7 (0.9) | 31.5 (1.4) | 35.1 (0.9) | 33.5 (0.9) | ||
| 0 | 10.6 (0.3) | 9.9 (0.4) | 11.2 (0.3) | 10.7 (0.2) | NS | |
| 24 | 11.2 (0.3) | 10.2 (0.5) | 11.2 (0.3) | 11.2 (0.3) | ||
| 0 | 13.0 (1.3) | 14.4 (1.0) | 14.2 (1.2) | 14.0 (1.6) | NS | |
| 24 | 13.3 (2.2) | 12.7 (1.0) | 13.4 (1.2) | 15.4 (1.5) | ||
| 0 | 48.5 (4.9) | 49.4 (4.3) | 49.6 (4.2) | 51.7 (7.1) | NS | |
| 24 | 42.9 (2.1) | 44.1 (3.9) | 47.5 (5.1) | 49.1 (5.1) | ||
| T0 | 347.0 (38.4) | 472.7 (33.6) | 517.4 (46.7) | 446.0 (54.4) | NS | |
| T24 | 404.7 (42.9) | 441.7 (33.2) | 530.9 (41.2) | 527.0 (54.7) |
Data are expressed as means (standard deviations). * Data compared using repeated measures analysis of variance ANOVA; NS: not significant.
C-reactive protein measurements at T0 and T24.
| Sham | NOTES | Laparoscopy | Laparotomy | ||
| n = 6 | n = 12 | n = 8 | n = 8 | ||
| T0 | 44,913 (5035) | 38,460 (5847) | 46,786 (9552) | 48,195 (9856) | NS |
| T24 | 76,931 (5915) | 67,845 (6744) | 90,863 (16696) | 97,885 (9107) | |
| <0.001 | |||||
T0: 0 min; T24: 24 h after T0. Data are expressed as means (standard deviations) in ng/ml. The data were compared using repeated measures ANOVA.
Interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels during the 24 h following the procedure.
| Group | Rates of IL-6 levels (%) compared to T0 | ||||
| T1 | T3 | T6 | T9 | T24 | |
| SHAM | 5.2 (18.7) | 86.7 (58.7) | 78.7 (65.2) | 81.3 (92.8) | -6.9 (5.5) |
| NOTES | 0.1 (8.0) | 59.2 (34.2) | 82.5 (36.5) | 31.2 (21.2) | 42.8 (37.9) |
| Laparoscopy | -14.6 (8.7) | -0.3 (10.7) | 36.6 (31.0) | 10.5 (10.9) | -3.0 (6.2) |
| LaparotomyD | 13.7 (18.0) | 199.3 (72.0)A | 430.1 (163.6)B | 268.0 (91.9)C | 37.1 (16.8) |
Data are expressed as means (standard deviations). A: Significant difference compared to the laparoscopy group at T3 (p<0.05); B: Significant difference compared to the laparoscopy, NOTES and SHAM groups at T6 (p<0.001); C: Significant difference compared to the laparoscopy and NOTES groups at T9 (p<0.05); D: Significant difference (p<0.05) within the laparotomy group: the difference (%) at T6 was higher than the differences (%) at T1, T3, T9 and T24; IL-6 differences (%) at T3 and T9 were higher than at T1 and T24.
Figure 1IL-6 variation with time in all groups.