ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
The effect of nicardipine on the zone of stasis in burns: An experimental rat model.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe zone of stasis in burns is particularly vulnerable to progressive ischemia, making it a critical target for therapeutic interventions. Preventing damage in this zone is essential, as its viability can be preserved with adequate perfusion. Recognizing this, we aimed to investigate the systemic effects of nicardipine, a calcium channel blocker with vasodilatory properties, on the stasis zone in an experimentally induced burn model in rats. We hypothesized that nicardipine could mitigate ischemic progression in the stasis zone and thereby preserve tissue viability.
methodsA total of 20 Wistar-Albino rats were included in this study and divided into two groups: a control group (n=10) and a treatment group (n=10). The experimental burn model described by Regas and Ehrlich was employed. Under anesthesia, a 1 x 2 cm metal comb, preheated in boiling water, was applied to the dorsal skin of the rats for 30 seconds to create burn wounds. No treatment was administered to the control group. The treatment group, however, received a daily systemic dose of nicardipine (5 mg/kg) via gastric lavage for three days. Wound healing was monitored daily using a digital camera for three consecutive days. One rat in the treatment group was excluded due to mortality. After three days, the burned areas were excised from the dorsal skin of all rats and subjected to histopathological examination. Additionally, photo analysis of the burn areas was conducted using data obtained from the digital images.
resultsNicardipine treatment significantly improved burn healing parameters in the stasis zone. Compared to the control group, the treatment group demonstrated lower scores for edema (0.78 vs. 2.80, p<0.05), congestion (0.22 vs. 2.80, p<0.05), inflammation (0.67 vs. 2.90, p<0.05), vascularization (0.11 vs. 2.70, p<0.05), and fibrosis (0.22 vs. 2.90, p<0.05). Quantitative measurements also revealed a significant reduction in necrosis zone thickness (1079.75 µm vs. 2818.82 µm, p<0.05) and necrosis area (249.33 µm² vs. 400.13 µm², p<0.05). These findings indicate that nicardipine effectively mitigates ischemic progression and promotes tissue recovery in burn injuries.
conclusionOur experimental study demonstrated that nicardipine has the potential to prevent and treat damage in the burn stasis zone, suggesting its therapeutic role in burn injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.