• Fatma Betul Tuncer, F Nihal Durmus Kocaaslan, Alper Yildirim, Bulent Sacak, Sevil Arabaci Tamer, Hulya Sahin, Leyla Cinel, and Ozhan Celebiler.
• Istanbul, Turkey; and Salt Lake City, Utah From the Departments of Plastic Surgery, Physiology, and Pathology, Marmara University; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Utah.
• Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019 Jul 1; 144 (1): 124-133.

BackgroundFree 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.MethodsThirty-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.ResultsAnimals 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).ConclusionsThis 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.

32 keywords...

hide…