Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Microcirculation. 2012 Aug;19(6):501–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-8719.2012.00176.x

TABLE 1.

Quantification of lodged bubbles

Rat# Number of bubbles Configuration of Bubbles
Length Hydraulic Diameter
Non-spherical (Ld ≥ 1.8) Bubble Reversal

Capillary 1 13 62% 8% 77 (±30) 35 (±7)
2 9 100% 0% 73 (±22) 39 (±12)
3 10 78% 0% 70 (±24) 35 (±12)
4 12 93% 8% 81 (±19) 34 (±8)
5 15 80% 7% 80 (±20) 35 (±8)

Overall 59 83% 5% (±4%) *76 (±23) **36 (±9)

Feeder 1 8 75% 0% 25 (±6) 12 (±6)
2 12 100% 8% 27 (±10) 12 (±4)
3 14 62% 7% 21 (±6) 11 (±5)
4 9 78% 0% 25 (±8) 13 (±5)
5 10 100% 0% 25 (±9) 9 (±6)

Overall 53 81% 4% (±4%) *25 (±8) **11 (±5)

Comparison of the number, configuration, and dimensions of lodged bubbles following the capillary and feeder vessel exposure. Five rats were used for each type of exposure. Bubbles from capillary exposure are larger [L = 76mm(±23); D = 36mm(±9)] than those from feeder vessel exposure [L = 25mm(±8); D = 11mm(±5)].

* **

The results are statistically different in comparison to corresponding values (Mann-Whitney, na=59, nb=53, p<0.01, where “a” is capillary population and “b” is feeder vessel population).