Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul;144(1):124-133.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005708.

Ischemic Preconditioning and Iloprost Reduces Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Jejunal Flaps: An Animal Model

Fatma Betul Tuncer  1 , F Nihal Durmus Kocaaslan  1 , Alper Yildirim  1 , Bulent Sacak  1 , Sevil Arabaci Tamer  1 , Hulya Sahin  1 , Leyla Cinel  1 , Ozhan Celebiler  1
Affiliations

Ischemic Preconditioning and Iloprost Reduces Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Jejunal Flaps: An Animal Model

Fatma Betul Tuncer et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Free jejunal flaps are among the most commonly used flaps for esophageal reconstruction. However, ischemia-reperfusion injury caused by warm ischemia seen during transfer limits their use. Iloprost, a prostacyclin analogue, has been shown to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury in various organs. The authors investigated tissue damage in jejunal flaps with iloprost and ischemic preconditioning and compared the effectiveness of these two modalities.

Methods: Thirty-four Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into five groups: sham, ischemia-reperfusion (control), ischemic preconditioning, iloprost, and ischemic preconditioning plus iloprost. All flaps, except those in the sham group, underwent ischemia for 60 minutes and reperfusion for 2 hours. Flap perfusion was assessed by laser Doppler perfusion monitoring. Histologic sections were scored using the Chiu scoring system. Superoxide dismutase and myeloperoxidase levels were measured spectrophotometrically.

Results: Animals that were administered iloprost and/or underwent ischemic preconditioning had better postischemic recovery of mesenteric perfusion (ischemic preconditioning, 78 percent; iloprost, 83 percent; ischemic preconditioning plus iloprost, 90 percent; versus ischemia-reperfusion, 50 percent; p < 0.05). All intervention groups showed improved histology of jejunal flaps following ischemia-reperfusion injury (ischemic preconditioning, 3; iloprost, 2.3; ischemic preconditioning plus iloprost, 3.2; versus ischemia-reperfusion, 4.7; p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.05, respectively). Superoxide dismutase levels were higher in ischemic preconditioning, iloprost plus ischemic preconditioning, and iloprost groups (ischemic preconditioning, 2.7 ± 0.2; ischemic preconditioning plus iloprost, 2.5 ± 0.3; versus ischemia-reperfusion, 1.2 ± 0.1; p < 0.01; iloprost, 2.4 ± 1.1; versus ischemia-reperfusion, 1.2 ± 0.1; p < 0.05). Myeloperoxidase, a marker for neutrophil infiltration, was lower in the iloprost group (iloprost, 222 ± 5; versus ischemia-reperfusion, 291 ± 25; p < 0.05).

Conclusions: This study showed that both iloprost and ischemic preconditioning reduced reperfusion injury in jejunal flaps. Based on histologic results, iloprost may be a novel treatment alternative to ischemic preconditioning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Disa JJ, Pusic AL, Mehrara BJ. Reconstruction of the hypopharynx with the free jejunum transfer. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94:466–470.
    1. Chen HC, Tang YB. Microsurgical reconstruction of the esophagus. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19:235–245.
    1. Olding M, Jeng JC. Ischemic tolerance of canine jejunal flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;94:167–173.
    1. Keereweer S, Sewnaik A, Kerrebijn J, Meeuwis CA, Tilanus HW, de Wilt JH. Salvage or what follows the failure of a free jejunum transfer for reconstruction of the hypopharynx? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:976–980.
    1. Unal S, Demirkan F, Arslan E, et al. Comparison of ischemic and chemical preconditioning in jejunal flaps in the rat. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:1024–1031.