Tapia JJ, Jiménez CJL, León MB, Peña JCM, Baños GC, García GJJ

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 140-144
PDF size: 78.92 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To reproduce an abdominal sepsis model in the experimental animal.
Setting: Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, UNAM.
Design: Descriptive, comparative study.
Statistical analysis: We compared groups at 24, 48, and 96 hours, using Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskall-Wallis.
Material and methods: We operated 18 Wistar rats, divided in 3 groups. Group I was subjected to laparotomy and wall closure. Groups II and III were subjected to laparotomy and the base of the cecum was ligated. Three punctures were made in the cecum with a 20-gauge needle. At 24 hours, all three groups were subjected to Laparotomy and samples from the abdominal cavity were taken for culture. The abdominal cavity of Group III was additionally washed with saline solution and closed. At 48 and 96 hours a new laparotomy was performed and samples were taken again from the abdominal cavity.
Results: Differences between Group I and Groups II and III were statistically significant. Comparison between the two last ones at 48 hours revealed no differences in the number of CFU. At 96 hours, differences were only found between the control Group (I) and Group II (p 0.010). Between groups I and III no differences were found (p 0.076); however, this could be due to a possible effect of the saline solution washing that made conditions similar between these two groups.
Conclusions: It was statistically demonstrated cecal ligation and puncture induces a significant increase in the number of CFU/ml, and that washing of the abdominal cavity with saline solution leads to a decrease in the number of CFU/ml.

REFERENCES

1. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 1250-1256.

2. Castañón J. Definición fisiopatológica, clasificación y tratamiento del estado de choque. En: Aguirre R, Garza L, editores. Tratado de Cirugía General. Ed. Manual Moderno, México, 2003: 137-141.

3. Sands KE, Bates DW, Lanken PN, Graman PS, Hibberd PL, Kahn KL, et al. Epidemiology of sepsis syndrome in 8 academic medical centers. JAMA 1997; 278: 234-240.

4. Matot I, Sprung CL. Definition of sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27: S3-S9.

5. Buras JA, Holzmann B, Sitkovsky M. Animal models of sepsis: setting the stage. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005; 4: 854-865.

6. Rodrigues FH, Carneiro BG, Rocha RF, Petroianu A. Inhibition of abdominal absceso formation: mortality by sepsis. Arq Gastroenterol 2005; 42: 50-4.

7. Parker SJ, Watkins PE. Experimental models of gram-negative sepsis. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 22-30.

8. Garrido AG, Figueiredo LFP, Silva MRE. Experimental models of sepsis and septic shock: an overview. Acta Cir Bras 2004; 19(2): 82-88.

9. Johnston TD, Hampton WW, Fry DE. Septic hemodynamics produced by infusion of endotoxin. Curr Surg 1989; 46: 101-3.

10. Brackett DJ, Schaefer CF, Tompkins P, Fagraeus L, Peters LJ, Wilson MF. Evaluation of cardiac output, total peripheral vascular resistance, and plasma concentrations of vasopressin in the conscious, unrestrained rat during endotoxemia. Circ Shock 1985; 17: 273-84.

11. Hardaway RM, Williams CH, Sun Y. A new approach to the treatment of experimental septic shock. J Surg Res 1996; 61: 311-6.

12. Zantl N, Uebe A, Neumann B, Wagner H, Siewert JR, Holzman B, Heidecke CD, Pfeffer K. Essential role of gamma interferon in survival of colon ascendens stent peritonitis, a novel murine model of abdominal sepsis. Infect Immun 1998; 66: 2300-2309.

13. Bluth MH, Kandil E, Mueller CM, Shah V, Lin YY, Zhang H, et al. Sophorolipids block lethal effects of septic shock in rats in a cecal ligation and puncture model of experimental sepsis. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 188-95.

14. Villa P, Sartor G, Angelini M, Sironi M, Conni M, Gnocchi P, et al. Pattern of cytokines and pharmacomodulation in sepsis induced by cecal ligation and puncture compared with that induced by endotoxin. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 1995; 2: 549-53.

15. Hubbard WJ, Choudhry M, Schwacha MG, Kerby JD, Rue LW 3rd, Bland KI, et al. Cecal ligation and puncture. Shock 2005; 24(Suppl 1): 52-7.

16. Agar Levine con Eosina y Azul de Metileno. En: Medios de cultivo, Bioxon de México S.A. México, D.F. Pag 9.

17. Norma Oficial Mexicana. Especificaciones Técnicas para la producción, cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio. NOM-062-ZOO-1999.

18. Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J, Dellamonica P, Gouin F, Lepoutre A, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults. A multicenter prospective study in intensive care units. French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis. JAMA 1995; 274: 968-974.

19. Martin GS, Bernard GR. International Sepsis Forum. Airway and lung in sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27: S63-S79.

20. Quartin AA, Schein RM, Kett DH, Peduzzi PN. Magnitude and duration of the effect of sepsis on survival. Department of Veterans Affairs Sepsis Cooperative Studies Group. JAMA 1997; 277: 1058-1065.

21. Tapia J, Rey A, Sánchez I, Ostos L, Butron L, Rosete R. Efectos hemodinámicos y renales del aumento de la presión intra-abdominal. Cir Gen 1992; 14: 17-21.

22. Esmon CT. Why do animal models (sometimes) fail to mimic human sepsis? Crit Care Med 2004; 32: S219-22.

23. Parker SJ, Watkins PE. Experimental models of gram-negative sepsis. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 22-30.