ArticleEplasty2009
Burn model for in vivo investigations of microcirculatory changes.
Article in Eplasty, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Electrocautery effects on fluorescence lifetime measurements: An in vivo study in the oral cavity.Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. B, Biology · 2018Article
- Topically administered rhGM-CSF affects PPARβ expression in the stasis zone.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Assessment of edema volume in skin upon injury in a mouse ear model with optical coherence tomography.Lasers in medical science · 2016Article
- Article
- New model for long-term investigations of cutaneous microcirculatory and inflammatory changes following irradiation.Journal of radiation research · 2015Article
- Intravital monitoring of microcirculatory and angiogenic response to lactocapromer terpolymer matrix in a wound model.International wound journal · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe treatment of burns remains a challenge due to the associated high morbidity and mortality. Besides the administration of physiologic saline, local disinfection, and symptomatic medications, no causal therapy is known to reduce the tissue damage and accelerate wound healing. The aim of the study was to develop a reliable burn model that allows for reproducible quantitative in vivo analysis of the microcirculation, angiogenesis, and leukocyte endothelium interaction after burn injury.
methodsExperiments were carried out on male hairless mice (n = 9). Full-thickness burns were inflicted with a hot air jet without any contact to the tissue (117 +/- 2.1 degrees C for 1 second; burn area: 1.3 mm(2)). Intravital fluorescent microscopy, in combination with FITC-dextran as plasma marker, was used to assess microcirculatory standard parameters; leukocytes were stained with rhodamine 6G. Values were obtained before, immediately after, as well as at days 1, 3, 7, and 14 postburn.
resultsThe nonperfused area decreased during the observed period and perfusion was almost completely due to angiogenesis at day 14. No posttraumatic expansion of the nonperfused area after 24 hours could be observed. Leukocyte endothelium interaction showed its maximum 24 hours postburn. The formation of edema occurred immediately postburn and decreased during the following observation time.
conclusionThe developed burn model allows a reproducible assessment with significant results of the microcirculation, angiogenesis, and leukocyte endothelium interaction without causing mechanical damage to the tissue; therefore, this model qualifies for the further investigations of interventional drugs to decrease the effects of burn injury.
Identifiers
19412334PMC2667331W95726103What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.