PURPOSE: To evaluate effects of ischemic preconditioning and Cilostazol on muscle ischemia-reperfusion injury. METHODS: Male Wistar rats were submitted to muscle ischemic and reperfusion injury (4h of the left common iliac artery occlusion followed by 1h of reperfusion). Five experimental groups were constituted: Control group (n=4); Ischemia-Reperfusion (IR, n=5); Ischemic preconditioning group (IP, n=6); Ischemia-Reperfusion group treated with cilostazol (IRCi, n=6) and Ischemic preconditioning group treated with cilostazol (IPCi, n=6). At the end, left gracile muscle was removed and embedded in paraffin. Histopathology, neutrophil infiltration, myocyte necrosis and edema were analyzed. RESULTS: When compared with the control group, IR group showed increased neutrophil infiltration, severe necrosis and edema. There was significant difference between myocytes necrosis of IR group and IP group. There was no difference between the histopathological changes between IP, IRCi and IPCi groups. CONCLUSIONS: The model of IR caused severe muscle injury in the rat hind limb and ischemic preconditioning has a protective effect, reducing myocyte necrosis, however, treatment with cilostazol and also the association between cilostazol and preconditioning has no protective effect on the skeletal muscle subjected to ischemia and reperfusion injury.
PURPOSE: To evaluate effects of ischemic preconditioning and Cilostazol on muscle ischemia-reperfusion injury. METHODS: Male Wistar rats were submitted to muscle ischemic and reperfusion injury (4h of the left common iliac artery occlusion followed by 1h of reperfusion). Five experimental groups were constituted: Control group (n=4); Ischemia-Reperfusion (IR, n=5); Ischemic preconditioning group (IP, n=6); Ischemia-Reperfusion group treated with cilostazol (IRCi, n=6) and Ischemic preconditioning group treated with cilostazol (IPCi, n=6). At the end, left gracile muscle was removed and embedded in paraffin. Histopathology, neutrophil infiltration, myocyte necrosis and edema were analyzed. RESULTS: When compared with the control group, IR group showed increased neutrophil infiltration, severe necrosis and edema. There was significant difference between myocytes necrosis of IR group and IP group. There was no difference between the histopathological changes between IP, IRCi and IPCi groups. CONCLUSIONS: The model of IR caused severe muscle injury in the rat hind limb and ischemic preconditioning has a protective effect, reducing myocyte necrosis, however, treatment with cilostazol and also the association between cilostazol and preconditioning has no protective effect on the skeletal muscle subjected to ischemia and reperfusion injury.