Page 81 - Read Online
P. 81

Zor et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2018;2:12  I  http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2017.34                                                 Page 5 of 7

               to be comparable to 10 min of inflation and desufflation periods, against laparoscopic IRI. So they suggested
               it to be more practical for clinical use . It is important to mention that to date there is no human studies to
                                               [49]
               assess the role of described laparoscopic/robotic IPC.



               CONCLUSION
               The potential positive effects of IPC against IRI have been demonstrated by several studies over the past 2
               decades. Despite these encouraging findings, IPC has not been routinely used in clinical settings yet. One
               of the major reasons of this situation is the very limited number of larger animal and human studies and
               regarding conflicting results. The unknown parts of the exact mechanisms, the lack of standard protocols
               for its use such as clamping time, number of clamping cycles for remote IPC, using an early window or a
               late window, using local IPC or remote IPC, and the all remaining uncertainty regarding this process might
               lead clinicians to be hesitant about its clinical use. In their study in 2000, Yellon and Dana  asked the
                                                                                               [50]
               question: “The preconditioning phenomenon: a tool for the scientist or a clinical reality?” It is nearly passed
               two decades, but the same question hasn’t lost its currency yet. We also agree with them and many others
               who made great effort on this topic that more work is needed on IRI, IPC and LPC before its adaptation to
               clinical settings to become something more than a tool for the scientist.



               DECLARATIONS
               Authors’ contributions
               Substantial contribution to conception and design, and acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation
               of data: Zor M
               Drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content: Kangal KO
               Giving the final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised version: Zor M


               Financial support and sponsorship
               None.


               Conflicts of interest
               All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.


               Patient consent
               Not applicable.


               Ethics approval
               Not applicable.


               Copyright
               © The Author(s) 2018.



               REFERENCES
               1.   Murry CE, Jenning RB, Reimer KA. Preconditioning with ischaemia: a delay of lethal cell injury in ischemic myocardium. Circulation
                   1986;74:1124-36.
               2.   Bonventre JV, Yang L. Cellular pathophysiology of ischemic acute kidney injury. J Clin Invest 2011;121:4210-21.
               3.   Eltzschig HK, Eckle T. Ischemia and reperfusion from mechanism to translation. Nat Med 2011;17:1391-401.
               4.   Ii M, Nishimura H, Iwakura A, Wecker A, Eaton E, Asahara T, Losordo DW. Endothelial progenitor cells are rapidly recruited to
                   myocardium and mediate protective effect of ischemic preconditioning via “imported” nitric oxide synthase activity. Circulation
                   2005;111:1114-20.
               5.   O’Malley C, Cunningham AJ. Physiologic changes during laparoscopy. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2001;19:1-19.
               6.   Schäfer M, Krähenbühl L. Effects of laparoscopy on intra-abdominal blood flow. Surgery 2001;129:385-9.
   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86