Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 26;2016:8580475. doi: 10.1155/2016/8580475

Table 2.

Histopathologic scores in groups.

Groups Proximal tubulus Mononuclear cell infiltration Capillary vasodilation Total cell injury score
Group I (nondiabetic sham)
(n = 7)
0.14 ± 0.38
0.0
0-1
0.29 ± 0.49
0.0
0-1
0.29 ± 0.49
0.0
0-1
0.71 ± 1.11
0.0
0–3

Group II (diabetic sham)
(n = 6)
1.33 ± 0.52
1.0
1-2
1.33 ± 0.52
1.0
1-2
1.17 ± 0.41
1.0
1-2
3.83 ± 0.98
3.5
3–5

Group III (diabetic IR)
(n = 6)
1.83 ± 0.41
2.0
1-2
1.66 ± 0.52
2.0
1-2
1.5 ± 0.55
1.5
1-2
5.0 ± 1.09
5.0
4–6

Group IV (diabetic IR + LIPC)
(n = 6)
2.33 ± 0.52
2.0
2-3
2.17 ± 0.75
2.0
1–3
2.17 ± 0.41
2.0
2-3
6.67 ± 0.82
6.5
6–8

p  values
p 12 0.003 0.008 0.010 0.004
p 13 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.002
p 14 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002
p 23 0.093 0.269 0.241 0.082
p 24 0.014 0.057 0.006 0.003
p 34 0.092 0.206 0.043 0.020

Group I: nondiabetic sham, Group II: diabetic sham, Group III (diabetic IR): renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in diabetic rats group, and Group IV (diabetic IR + LIPC): renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in diabetic rats group and local ischemia preconditioning; Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare two independent groups. Values are mean ± 1 SD, median (minimum-maximum).

p 12: comparison of nondiabetic sham and diabetic sham.

p 13: comparison of nondiabetic sham and diabetic IR.

p 14: comparison of nondiabetic sham and diabetic IR + LIPC.

p 23: comparison of diabetic sham and diabetic IR.

p 24: comparison of diabetic sham and diabetic IR + LIPC.

p 34: comparison of diabetic IR and diabetic IR + LIPC.