2005
DOI: 10.1590/s0102-09352005000400004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: RESUMOAvaliou-se o efeito da reconstrução do ligamento cruzado cranial, associado ou não ao sulfato de condroitina, na evolução da osteoartrite induzida experimentalmente em cães. Vinte cães hígidos, sem raça definida, machos e fêmeas, com peso corpóreo entre 19 e 25kg, foram submetidos à desmotomia do ligamento cruzado cranial. Trinta dias após, foram separados em dois grupos de 10 animais. Um grupo foi submetido à reconstrução do ligamento cruzado com uso de aloenxerto de ligamento patelar congelado, o outro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
2
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
1
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…No radiographic changes compatible with DJD were found in the dogs, contrary to the observations of Pearson (1971), Heffron & Campbell (1979), Vasseur & Berry (1992) and Biasi et al (2005), who reported the presence of osteophytes, entesiophytes and erosion of the subchondral bone in dogs with DJD, which were more pronounced in animals that were not treated with chondroitin sulfate (Biasi et al, 2005). The discrepancy between the data is explained by the fact that, in this study, we chose to provoke an acute injury, characterized by the removal of a fragment of articular cartilage, whereas the above mentioned authors induced instability of the knee joint, which leads to a chronic injury that, in turn, progressively degenerate the cartilage and generates the radiographic signs consistent with DJD.…”
Section: Groupcontrasting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…No radiographic changes compatible with DJD were found in the dogs, contrary to the observations of Pearson (1971), Heffron & Campbell (1979), Vasseur & Berry (1992) and Biasi et al (2005), who reported the presence of osteophytes, entesiophytes and erosion of the subchondral bone in dogs with DJD, which were more pronounced in animals that were not treated with chondroitin sulfate (Biasi et al, 2005). The discrepancy between the data is explained by the fact that, in this study, we chose to provoke an acute injury, characterized by the removal of a fragment of articular cartilage, whereas the above mentioned authors induced instability of the knee joint, which leads to a chronic injury that, in turn, progressively degenerate the cartilage and generates the radiographic signs consistent with DJD.…”
Section: Groupcontrasting
confidence: 82%
“…But the variation was not confirmed by the ANOVA with repeated measures, with no significant difference between the measurements of operated and non-operated dogs, regardless of group. Although Henrotin et al (2005) claim that the use of chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine as chondroprotectors promotes improvement of symptoms such as lameness and pain, in this study there was no significant difference between the treated and control groups regarding the degree of lameness and pain, which was also observed by Biasi et al (2005) in the treatment with 240 mg of chondroitin sulfate, subcutaneously, in dogs with unstable knees, and by Clegg et al (2006), when treated osteoarthritis in humans using the same substances.…”
Section: Day 5 Day 10 Day 15contrasting
confidence: 49%
“…The model used CCLT to induce morphological changes allowed the evaluation of this common disease, as described by Biasi et al (2005), Gonçalves et al (2008) and Melo et al (2008). The development and progression of OA occurred due to joint instability, which changed the distribution of weight on the joint (Glasson et al 2007, Herzog & Longino 2007.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Além disso, estimulam a síntese de proteoglicanos e colágeno, sendo capazes de aumentar a proliferação dos condrócitos e a biossíntese da matriz (Altman et al, 1989(Altman et al, e 1990Francis et al, 1989;Clark;1991a). Esses efeitos suportam a hipótese de que as alterações da cartilagem articular, na osteoartrose, podem ser manejadas e que o uso dos glicosaminoglicanos pode complementar o tratamento da DAD (Altman et al, 1989;Clark, 1991b;Biasi et al, 2005). O tratamento da DAD permanece controverso, pois não se conseguiu parar ou retardar o processo degenerativo de forma satisfatória.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified