·138·2011年3月18日第8卷第3期ChinJCerebrovascDis,Mar．：．．大鼠局灶性脑缺血模型制备方法的比较王文鑫孙正辉许百男宋志军基础研究·摘要：目的比较线栓法、电凝大脑中动脉同时结扎单侧颈总动脉(简称电凝单侧结扎)和电凝大脑中动脉同时结扎双侧颈总动脉(简称电凝双侧结扎)3种方法制作局灶性大鼠脑缺血模型的优劣。方法按照动物模型制备方法的不同，将20只大鼠随机分为线栓组(6只)、电凝单侧结扎组(7只)和电凝双侧结扎组(7只)。采用三种方法制备大鼠局灶性脑缺血模型，用激光多普勒血流仪测得梗死前后的脑血流量的相对值，24h后对模型进行神经功能缺损评分，行2，3，5一氯化三苯基四氮唑染色，计算脑梗死体积。结果①线栓组(9．6±0．6)和电凝双侧结扎组(9．84-0．6)大鼠的神经功能缺损评分高于电凝单侧结扎组(5．74-0．7)，差异有统计学意义，P<0．01；②线栓组(132±16)mm和电凝双侧结扎组(142-4-20)mm大鼠的梗死体积高于电凝单侧结扎组(40±11)mm，差异有统计学意义，P<0．01；③电凝双侧结扎组的脑血流量相对值低于电凝单侧结扎组，差异有统计学意义，P<0．05；再灌注后，线栓组的脑血流量相对值高于电凝双侧结扎组，差异有统计学意义，P<0．05。结论三种方法建立大鼠局灶性脑缺血模型，各有优缺点，应根据研究目的采用不同的模型。关键词：脑缺血；模型，动物；大脑中动脉；大鼠doi：10．3969／j．issn．1672—5921．2011．03．006ComparisonoftheestablishmentmethodsoffocalcerebralischemicmodelinratsWANGWen—xin．SUNZheng—hui，XUBai—nan，SONGZhijun．DepartmentofNeurosurgery，ChinesePLAGeneralHospital，Beijing100853，ChinaCorrespondingauthor：SUNZheng—hui，Email：szh301@sina．cornAbstract：0bjectiveTocomparetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheintraluminalsuture，electrocautarizationofmiddlecerebralarterycombinedwithunilateralligationofcommoncarotidarteryandelectrocautarizationofmiddlecerebralarterycombinedwithbilateralligationofcommoncarotidarteryforestablishmentoffocalcerebralischemiamodelsinrats．MethodsThefoca1cerebralischemiaratmodelswereinducedby3means．Twentyratswererandomlyallocatedintointraluminalsuturegroup(n=6)，electrocautarizationwithunilateralligationgroup(n=7)，andelectrocautarizationwithbilateralligationgroup(n=7)accordingtothedifferentmethodsforestablishmentoftheratmode1．AlaserDopplerflowmetrywasusedtodetecttherelativevaluesofthecerebralbloodflowbeforeandaftercerebralinfarction．Theneurologicaldeficitscoresofmodelsweremeasuredafter24h，andthebrainsliceswerestainedwith2，3，5-triphenyltetrazoliumchloride．Thevolumeofcerebralinfarctionwascalculated．Results①Theneurologicaldeficitscoresintheintraluminalsuturegroup(9．6±0．6)andtheelectrocautarizationwithbi—lateralligationgroup(9．8±0．6)werehigherthanthoseintheelectrocautarizationwithunilateralligationgroup(5．7±0．7)．Thedifferenceswerestatisticallysignificant(P<0．01)．②Thevolumeofcerebralinfarctionintheintraluminalsuturegroup(131．5±15．8)mlnandtheelectrocautarizationwithbilateralligationgroup(141．7±19．8)toniwerelargerthanthatintheelectrocautarizationwithunilateralligationgroup(39．9±11．4)mm．Thedifferenceswerestatisticallysignificant(P<0．01)．~Therelativevalueofcerebralbloodflow(CBF)intheelectrocautarizationwithbilateralligationgroupwaslowerthanthatintheelectrocautarizationwithunilateralligationgroup．Thedifferencewasstatisticallysignificant(P<作者单佗：100853北京，中国人民解放车总医院神经外科通讯作者：孙正辉，Email：szh301@sina．coin血竹病杂志2011I3月18¨第8卷第3蚴ChinJCerebr0vascDis．Ma18．2011．V0l_8．N0．30．05)．Afterrepefusion，therelativevalueofCBFintheintraluminalsuturegroupwash...
