In Vitro and In Vivo Effect of Lidocaine on Rat Muscle-Derived Cells for Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence

  1. Kyung Kim, Dae 1
  2. Ron J., Jankowski
  3. Pruchnic, Ryan
  4. Miguel, Fernando de
  5. Yoshimura, Naoki
  6. Honda, Masashi
  7. Furuta, Akira
  8. Chancellor, Michael B.
  1. 1 Eulji University
    info

    Eulji University

    Daejeon, Corea del Sur

    ROR https://ror.org/005bty106

Revista:
Urology

ISSN: 0090-4295

Año de publicación: 2009

Volumen: 73

Número: 2

Páginas: 437-441

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2008.06.019 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Urology

Resumen

ObjectivesLidocaine cytotoxicity has been reported in some cell types, which could affect its use as a local anesthetic in cell-based therapy. We evaluated the in vitro and in vivo effect of lidocaine on rat muscle-derived progenitor cells (MDCs).MethodsMDCs were isolated from rat skeletal muscle and purified using the preplate technique. For in vitro tests, the MDCs underwent either 2 hours of, or continuous, exposure to lidocaine (50 μM-5 mM). After 72 hours of incubation, cell viability was measured using the methylthiazololetetrazolium assay. For the in vivo tests, periurethral injection of either phosphate-buffered saline, MDCs (1 × 106 cells/20 μL), or 2% lidocaine plus MDCs was performed in pudendal nerve-transected rats. The leak point pressure (LPP) was measured at 4 weeks after the injection.ResultsLidocaine concentrations of ≤500 μM had no effect on MDCs with continuous exposure. MDCs in 1 mM lidocaine showed decreased survival and no MDCs in 5 mM lidocaine survived. With a 2-hour exposure, only MDCs in the 5-mM lidocaine group showed decreased survival. Rats with nerve transection and phosphate-buffered saline injection showed significantly lower LPPs than the controls. The LPP was restored to a significantly greater level after MDCs only or lidocaine plus MDC injection. No statistically significant difference in LPP restoration was found between the MDC-only and lidocaine plus MDC injections.ConclusionsCytotoxicity to lidocaine was minimal at a physiologic concentration in vitro. The functional recovery of LPP by MDC treatment was not affected by lidocaine preinfiltration. Taken together, our data indicate that lidocaine can be applied as a local anesthetic in periurethral MDC injection without decreasing the efficacy of the therapy.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Achar, (2002), Am Fam Physician, 66, pp. 91
  • Hodgson, (1999), Anesth Analg, 88, pp. 797
  • Gold, (1998), J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 285, pp. 413
  • Guggi, (2004), Int J Pharmacol, 278, pp. 353, 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2004.03.016
  • Johnson, (2004), Anesthesiology, 101, pp. 1184, 10.1097/00000542-200411000-00019
  • Eggeling, (2000), J Cataract Refract Surg, 26, pp. 1403, 10.1016/S0886-3350(00)00379-5
  • Drewa, (2005), Transplant Proc, 37, pp. 2107, 10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.03.018
  • Nishina, (2002), Anesth Analg, 94, pp. 385, 10.1213/00000539-200202000-00029
  • Wohlrab, (2005), Int J Mol Med, 16, pp. 149
  • Cannon, (2003), Urology, 62, pp. 958, 10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00679-4
  • Kwon, (2006), Urology, 68, pp. 449, 10.1016/j.urology.2006.03.040
  • Rando, (1994), J Cell Biol, 125, pp. 1275, 10.1083/jcb.125.6.1275
  • Bischoff, (1986), Dev Biol, 115, pp. 129, 10.1016/0012-1606(86)90234-4
  • Lee, (2000), J Cell Biol, 150, pp. 1085, 10.1083/jcb.150.5.1085
  • Abrams, (2003), Urology, 61, pp. 37, 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02243-4
  • Monz, (2007), Eur Urol, 51, pp. 1073, 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.022
  • Chapple, (2005), Eur Urol, 48, pp. 552, 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.012
  • Corcos, (1999), Urology, 54, pp. 815, 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00269-1
  • Herschorn, (1996), J Urol, 156, pp. 1305, 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65575-7
  • Monga, (1995), Br J Urol, 76, pp. 156, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1995.tb07664.x
  • Liu, (2006), Cell Transplant, 15, pp. 455, 10.3727/000000006783981710
  • Chang, (2006), Cornea, 25, pp. 590, 10.1097/01.ico.0000220775.93852.02
  • Rosenberg, (2004), Reg Anesth Pain Med, 29, pp. 564
  • Guinard, (1992), Reg Anesth, 17, pp. 317
  • Guth, (2002), Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 57, pp. 342, 10.1002/ccd.10324