中文摘要：

目的：比较大鼠腹部与背部缺血再灌注损伤（IRI）模型的差异,探讨更为合适的动物皮瓣IRI模型。方法选用健康SD雄性大鼠24只,随机分成4组,每组各6只,分别为腹部皮瓣缺血再灌注（aIR）组,腹部皮瓣假手术（aSH）组,背部皮瓣缺血再灌注（dIR）组及背部皮瓣假手术（dSH）组。腹部皮瓣以腹壁下浅动脉为蒂,背部皮瓣以髂腰浅动脉为蒂。术后5d,观察大鼠死亡及皮瓣啃食损坏率,应用激光多普勒血流灌注成像仪计算成活区域平均血流灌注量及皮瓣成活率,HE染色进行组织形态学观察,TUNEL染色检测皮瓣组织细胞的早期凋亡,计算凋亡细胞阳性指数（AI）。结果 dIR组死亡率（0.0豫）、皮瓣啃食损坏率（0.0豫）低于aIR组的16.7豫与50.0豫,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,且dIR组炎性浸润情况弱于aIR组。 aSH组与dSH组的皮瓣成活率[（59.90±8.94）豫、（97.63±1.29）豫]及成活区域平均血流灌注量[（125.54±14.52）、（149.38±13.69）PU]分别高于aIR组与dIR组,差异有高度统计学意义（〈0.01）。aSH组与dSH组AI[（13.48±5.23）豫、（6.70±3.97）豫]分别低于aIR组与dIR组,差异有高度统计学意义（〈0.01）。 dIR组皮瓣成活率[（53.30±5.40）豫]、成活区域平均血流灌注量[（100.46±15.93）PU]较aIR组[（30.77±11.53）豫、（39.45±9.94）PU]高,差异有高度统计学意义（〈0.01）。 dIR组AI[（43.72±6.15）豫]较aIR组[（57.78±17.38）豫]低,差异有高度统计学意义（〈0.01）。结论背部皮瓣缺血再灌注损伤模型是较腹部皮瓣更为理想的模型。

英文摘要：

Objective To investigate a more appropriate animal skin flap model of ischemia reperfusion injury （IRI） by comparing the differences between abdominal and dorsal skin flap model of IRI on rats. Methods 24 healthy adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups, with 6 rats in each group： abdominal skin flap ischemia reperfusion （aIR） group, abdominal skin flap sham operation （aSH） group, dorsal skin flap ischemia reperfusion （dIR） group and dorsal skin flap sham operation （dSH） group. Superficial inferior epigastric artery was the pedicellof abdominal skin flap, while dorsal skin flap using iliolumbar shallow artery as its pedicel. 5 days after operation, calculated the survival rate and flap damage rate of gnawing were observed. Average blood perfusion unit of survival area and flap survival rate was measured by Laser Doppler blood perfusion imager. HE staining was used to observe morphological changes, early apoptosis in skin flap through TUNEL staining was observed and the apoptotic index （AI） was calculated. Results Both the death rate of rats and flap damage rate of gnawing were 0.0% in dIR group, lower than those of aIR group （16.7% and 50.0%）, the differences were statistically significant （P〈0.05）. On inflammatory infiltration, dIR group was weaker than aIR group. The aSH group and dSH group skin flap survival rate were （59.90±8.94）% and （97.63±1.29）%, the blood perfusion of survival areas were （125.54±14.52） PU and （149.38±13.69） PU, the differences were statistically significant （P〈 0.01）. The AI in aSH group and dSH group were （13.48±5.23）% and （6.70±3.97）%, which were lower than those in aIR group and dIR group, the differences were statistically significant （P〈0.01）. The skin flap survival rate and blood perfusion in dIR group were （53.30±5.40）% and （100.46±15.93） PU, which were higher than those in aIR group [（30.77±11.53）% and （39.45±9.94） PU], the differences were statistically s