Protective effects of terminal ileostomy against bacterial translocation in a rat model of intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury

Figure 1 Experimental design. I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis.

Figure 2 Wet-to-dry weight ratios. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. ^aP < 0.01 vs sham; ^bP < 0.01 vs I/R + RA. I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis.

Figure 3 Fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran levels in serum. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. ^aP < 0.01 vs sham. FITC: Fluorescein isothiocyanate; I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis.

Figure 4 Endotoxin levels in serum. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. ^aP < 0.01 vs sham; ^bP < 0.01 vs I/R + RA. I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis.

Figure 5 Serum levels of tumor necrosis factor tumor necrosis factor-α, -6 and IL-10 following intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. ^aP < 0.01 vs sham; ^bP < 0.01 vs I/R + RA group. IL: Interleukin; TNF-α: Tumor necrosis factor-α; I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis.

Figure 6 Myeloperoxidase activity in distal ileal tissue. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. ^aP < 0.05 vs sham; ^bP < 0.05 vs I/R + RA group. I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis; MPO: Myeloperoxidase.

Figure 7 Light microscopic evaluation of the distal ileum. Hematoxylin and eosin staining in distal ileum (magnification × 40) in the A: sham-operated group, showing an intact mucosal barrier with normal lamina propria; B: Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury resulted in acute mucosal damage; C: Resection and anastomosis did not ameliorate the mucosal damage caused by I/R injury; D: I/R + ileostomy resulted in an apparently intact mucosal barrier, though the epithelial cells appeared shrunken.

Figure 8 Histologic injury score of the intestines. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. ^aP < 0.01 vs sham. I/R: Ischemia/reperfusion; RA: Resection and anastomosis.