Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia (Jun 2012)

Descrição de um novo método de ooforectomia em ratas Description of a new method of ovariectomy in female rats

  • Deepak Kumar Khajuria,
  • Rema Razdan,
  • D Roy Mahapatra

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0482-50042012000300016
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 52, no. 3
pp. 466 – 470

Abstract

Read online

Atualmente, os ratos são os animais de laboratório mais usados para investigar a osteoporose. Apresentamos um método eficiente de ooforectomia e o comparamos com dois outros comumente utilizados para indução experimental de osteoporose (incisão cutânea dorsal na linha média e abordagem dorsolateral dupla). Ratas Wistar de 12 semanas de idade foram divididas em três grupos. No grupo A, a ooforectomia foi precedida por uma única incisão cutânea dorsal na linha média de 3 cm de comprimento; no grupo B, por incisões dorsolaterais duplas de aproximadamente 1 cm de comprimento cada; e no grupo C, por uma única incisão ventral transversal de 0,4-0,6 cm na região abdominal média. Os pesos corporais médios dos animais nos grupos A, B e C foram 258,12 ± 0,54 g, 255,78 ± 0,42 g e 254,55 ± 1,69 g, respectivamente. Houve diferenças significativas quanto à duração (em minutos) da cirurgia nos grupos B (9,65 ± 0,86) e C (7,55 ± 0,11;P Rats are currently the most used laboratory animals to investigate osteoporosis. We report an efficient method of ovariectomy and compared this method with the two other operative methods of ovariectomy (i.e., midline dorsal skin incision and double dorsolateral approach, which are used commonly for inducing experimental osteoporosis. Female Wistar rats, 12 weeks old, were divided into three groups. Ovariectomy was preceded by a single midline dorsal skin incision, 3 cm long, in the group A; double dorsolateral incisions, approximately 1 cm long, in the group B; and a single ventral transverse incision of 0.4-0.6 cm at the middle abdominal region in the group C. Animals in groups A, B, and C had a mean weight of 258.12 ± 0.54 g, 255.78 ± 0.42 g, and 254.55 ± 1.69 g, respectively. There were significant differences in the duration (in minutes) of surgery in the groups B (9.65 ± 0.86) and C (7.55 ± 0.11, P < 0.001) when compared to the group A (15.52 ± 0.30) and in the group B (P < 0.01) when compared to the group C. Wound healing time (in days) for groups B (9.22 ± 0.67) and C (8.01 ± 0.93) was significantly shorter than that for group A (11.58 ± 1.2, P < 0.001), with the wound healing time for group C being slightly shorter than that for group B. The surgery, as conducted in the group C, was technically easier, less time consuming and showed less wound healing duration.

Keywords