Efficacy comparison of oral rosuvastatin versus oral progesterone and bevacizumab on regression of surgically endometriotic implants in rats

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKebapcilar, Ayse G.
dc.contributor.authorIlhan, Tolgay T.
dc.contributor.authorDursunoglu, Duygu
dc.contributor.authorKebapcilar, Levent
dc.contributor.authorIpekci, Suleyman H.
dc.contributor.authorBaldane, Suleyman
dc.contributor.authorUcar, Mustafa G.
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T19:35:29Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T19:35:29Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThis study hypothesizes that oral rosuvastatin, oral dienogest and intraperitoneal bevacizumab might improve endometriosis in randomly selected female Wistar albino rats with surgically endometriotic implants. Thirty female Wistar albino rats with surgically endometriotic implants were randomized into three treatment groups: oral rosuvastatin (20mg kg/day; oral rosuvastatin group 1; n=10), oral progesterone (dienogest group 2; n=10) and intraperitoneal bevacizumab (2.5mg/kg of single intraperitoneal injection of bevacizumab; bevacizumab group 3; n=10), for 10 days. Post-treatment variables were compared. The oral rosuvastatin group showed higher reduction for the glandular epithelium and uterine vessels of histopathological scores values than the oral progesterone group (both, p<0.017, respectively). The median glandular epithelium and uterine vessels and histopathological scores values did not show a statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 3 (p>0.017). Endometrial thickness values and uterine volume values were more significantly reduced in the oral rosuvastatin group than the oral progesterone group (both, p<0.017, respectively). Moreover, endometrial thickness and uterine volume values were not different in groups wecompared with group 3 (p>0.017). In conclusion, oral rosuvastatin and intraperitoneal injection of bevacizumab may cause more significant regression of surgically endometriotic implants in rats than oral progesterone medications.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09513590.2017.1320384en_US
dc.identifier.endpage927en_US
dc.identifier.issn0951-3590en_US
dc.identifier.issn1473-0766en_US
dc.identifier.issue12en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28452240en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage923en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2017.1320384
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/35058
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000415656400005en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTDen_US
dc.relation.ispartofGYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectBevacizumaben_US
dc.subjectendometriotic implantsen_US
dc.subjectoral progesteroneen_US
dc.subjectoral rosuvastatinen_US
dc.titleEfficacy comparison of oral rosuvastatin versus oral progesterone and bevacizumab on regression of surgically endometriotic implants in ratsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu