| Literature DB >> 27994883 |
Xiaoli Shen1, Lina Huang2, Dahui Ma1, Jun Zhao1, Yi Xie3, Qiang Li4, Aineng Zeng3, Kun Zeng1, Ruyin Tian1, Tianfu Wang5, Siping Chen5.
Abstract
Ultrasound microbubble combined optic protection drugs have obvious protective effect on optic nerve damage. This way of targeting drug delivery is becoming more simple, not through the whole body metabolism, avoiding drug via blood circulation when facing the decomposition and the environment in the interference and destruction process of drugs, to maximize the guarantee to reach target organs of drug concentration and to reache the maximum therapeutic effect. The technique of ultrasound microbubbles is safe, controllable, nonimmunogenic, and repeatable. It provides us with a novel idea in the administration of neuroprotective drugs.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27994883 PMCID: PMC5138486 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4235923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Figure 1Preparation of ultrasound microbubble. (a) Ultrasonic instrument. (b) SonoVue. (c) mNGF injected into the vitreous. (d) Ultrasound irradiation on the rabbit's eye.
Comparison of IOP between group A and group B (mmHg).
| Time points | Before treatment | 1 week | 2 weeks | 4 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 13.6 ± 1.5 | 13.6 ± 1.8 | 13.4 ± 1.7 | 13.3 ± 1.4 |
| Group B | 15.0 ± 2.0 | 33.4 ± 2.8 | 34.1 ± 2.5 | 34.8 ± 2.2 |
|
| −1.561 | −17.845 | −21.308 | −22.71 |
|
| 0.137 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Comparison of latency and amplitude of P 100.
| Latency (ms) | Amplitude (nV) | |
|---|---|---|
| Group A | 46.20 ± 6.90 | 15.90 ± 2.48 |
| Group B | 125.00 ± 18.70 | 5.50 ± 3.03 |
| Group C | 102.10 ± 18.77 | 9.30 ± 3.13 |
| Group D | 102.50 ± 17.87 | 9.20 ± 3.42 |
| Group E | 63.80 ± 8.35 | 11.37 ± 2.84 |
In one-way ANOVA, there was no statistically significant difference about the mean value of latency and amplitude between groups C and D (P > 0.05).
Retinal thickness and RGCs counting.
| Retinal thickness ( | Number of RGCs | |
|---|---|---|
| Group A | 289.30 ± 2.39 | 26.04 ± 0.70 |
| Group B | 239.15 ± 2.68 | 14.97 ± 1.30 |
| Group C | 254.50 ± 3.03 | 19.33 ± 0.78 |
| Group D | 257.05 ± 2.28 | 20.25 ± 0.98 |
| Group E | 269.50 ± 3.00 | 23.97 ± 0.90 |
In one-way ANOVA, there was no statistically significant difference about the mean value of retinal thickness and number of RGCs between groups C and D (P > 0.05).