Spinal cord microcirculation plays a pivotal role in spinal cord injury. Most methods do not allow real-time assessment of spinal cord microcirculation, which is essential for the development of microcirculation-targeted therapies. Here, we propose a protocol using Laser-Doppler-Flow Needle probes in a large animal model of ischemia/reperfusion.
Spinal cord injury is a devastating complication of aortic repair. Despite developments for the prevention and treatment of spinal cord injury, its incidence is still considerably high and therefore, influences patient outcome. Microcirculation plays a key role in tissue perfusion and oxygen supply and is often dissociated from macrohemodynamics. Thus, direct evaluation of spinal cord microcirculation is essential for the development of microcirculation-targeted therapies and the evaluation of existing approaches in regard to spinal cord microcirculation. However, most of the methods do not provide real-time assessment of spinal cord microcirculation. The aim of this study is to describe a standardized protocol for real-time spinal cord microcirculatory evaluation using laser-Doppler needle probes directly inserted in the spinal cord. We used a porcine model of ischemia/reperfusion to induce deterioration of the spinal cord microcirculation. In addition, a fluorescent microsphere injection technique was used. Initially, animals were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated. Thereafter, laser-Doppler needle probe insertion was performed, followed by the placement of cerebrospinal fluid drainage. A median sternotomy was performed for exposure of the descending aorta to perform aortic cross-clamping. Ischemia/reperfusion was induced by supra-celiac aortic cross-clamping for a total of 48 min, followed by reperfusion and hemodynamic stabilization. Laser-Doppler Flux was performed in parallel with macrohemodynamic evaluation. In addition, automated cerebrospinal fluid drainage was used to maintain a stable cerebrospinal pressure. After completion of the protocol, animals were sacrificed, and the spinal cord was harvested for histopathological and microsphere analysis. The protocol reveals the feasibility of spinal cord microperfusion measurements using laser-Doppler probes and shows a marked decrease during ischemia as well as recovery after reperfusion. Results showed comparable behavior to fluorescent microsphere evaluation. In conclusion, this new protocol might provide a useful large animal model for future studies using real-time spinal cord microperfusion assessment in ischemia/reperfusion conditions.
Spinal cord injury induced by ischemia/reperfusion (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of aortic repair associated with reduced outcome1,2,3,4. Current prevention and treatment options for SCI include the optimization of macrohemodynamic parameters as well as the normalization of cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSP) to improve spinal cord perfusion pressure2,5,6,7,8,9. Despite the implementation of these maneuvers, incidence of SCI still ranges between 2% and 31% depending on the complexity of aortic repair10,11,12.
Recently, microcirculation has gained increased attention13,14. Microcirculation is the area of cellular oxygen uptake and metabolic exchange and therefore, plays a critical role in organ function and cellular integrity13. Impaired microcirculatory blood flow is a major determinant of tissue ischemia associated with increased mortality15,16,17,18,19. Impairment of spinal cord microcirculation is associated with reduced neurological function and outcome20,21,22,23. Therefore, optimization of microperfusion for the treatment of SCI is a most promising approach. Persistence of microcirculatory disturbances, despite macrocirculatory optimization, has been described26,27,28,29. This loss of hemodynamic coherence occurs frequently in various conditions including ischemia/reperfusion, emphasizing the need for direct microcirculatory evaluation and microcirculation-targeted therapies26,27,30.
So far, only few studies have used laser-Doppler probes for real-time assessment of spinal cord microcirculatory behavior20,31. Existing studies have often used microsphere injection techniques, which are limited by intermittent use and post-mortem analysis32,33. The number of different measurements using microsphere injection technique is limited by the availability of microspheres with different wavelengths. Moreover, in contrast to Laser-Doppler techniques, real-time assessment of microperfusion is not possible, as post-mortem tissue processing and analysis is needed for this method. Here, we present an experimental protocol for the real-time assessment of spinal cord microcirculation in a porcine large animal model of ischemia/reperfusion.
This study was part of a large animal project combining a randomized study comparing the influence of crystalloids vs. colloids on microcirculation in ischemia/reperfusion as well as an explorative randomized study on the effects of fluids vs. vasopressors on spinal cord microperfusion. Flow probe 2-point calibration as well as pressure-tip catheter calibration has been previously described34. In addition to the reported protocol, fluorescent microspheres were used for the measurement of spinal cord microperfusion, as previously described, using 12 samples of spinal cord tissue for each animal, with samples 1-6 representing the upper spinal cord and 7-12 representing the lower spinal cord35,36. Microsphere injection was performed for each measurement step after the completion of Laser-Doppler recordings and macrohemodynamic evaluation. Histopathological evaluation was performed using the Kleinman-Score as previously described37.
The study was approved by the Governmental Commission on the Care and Use of Animals of the City of Hamburg (Reference-No. 60/17). The animals received care in compliance with the 'Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals' (NIH publication No. 86-23, revised 2011) as well as FELASA recommendations and experiments were carried out according to the ARRIVE guidelines24,25. This study was an acute trial, and all animals were euthanized at the end of protocol.
NOTE: The study was performed in six three-month-old male and female pigs (German Landrace) weighing approximately 40 kg. Animals were brought to the animal care facilities at least 7 days prior to the experiments and were housed in accordance to animal welfare recommendations. Animals were provided food and water ad libitum, and their health status was regularly assessed by the responsible veterinarian. A fasting time of 12 h was maintained prior to the experiments. The entire experimental procedure and handling of the animals was supervised by the responsible veterinarian.
1. Anesthesia induction and maintenance of anesthesia
2. Probe placement
3. Catheter placement
4. Surgical preparation
5. Assessment and data acquisition
6. Experimental protocol
7. Euthanasia
8. Organ harvesting
9. Statistical analysis
All six animals survived until the completion of the protocol. Animal weight was 48.2 ± 2.9 kg; five animals were male, and one animal was female. Spinal cord needle probe insertion as well as spinal cord Flux measurement was feasible in all animals.
Examples of real-time spinal cord microcirculatory recordings in combination with cerebral microcirculatory and macrohemodynamic recordings during aortic cross-clamping for ischemia induction as well as during unclamping and reperfusion are shown in Figure 3A, Figure 3B. The disruption of descending aortic flow was followed by a marked decrease in spinal cord Flux, while pressure in the ascending aortic increased (Figure 3A). Reperfusion led to opposite effects (Figure 3B).
Statistical analysis of macro- and microcirculatory parameters is shown in Table 1. Mixed-model-estimated marginal means and their confidence intervals indicate marked reduction of spinal cord Flux during ischemia. In contrast, cerebral Flux markedly increased during ischemia, as indicated by the estimated marginal means and their confidence intervals. This was accompanied by increase in arterial pressure, heart rate, and systemic vascular resistance, whereas cardiac output and stroke volume decreased. Fluorescent microsphere analysis revealed a marked decrease in spinal cord microcirculatory blood flow in the lower spinal cord, while there was no significant change in the upper spinal cord, as indicated by the estimated marginal means and their confidence intervals. Reperfusion led to opposite effects. Although there was a further decrease in cardiac output, stroke volume, and arterial pressure at the end of the protocol, spinal cord Flux as well as spinal cord microcirculatory blood flow were stable.
The results of this study show the ability of Laser/Doppler needle probes to detect real-time changes in spinal cord microperfusion. As expected, the decrease in spinal cord microcirculation during ischemia was drastic with minimal microcirculatory Flux. Recovery of spinal cord Flux occurred after reperfusion. Lower spinal cord perfusion, as assessed with fluorescent microspheres, showed a comparable behavior, thus supporting the method. As expected, upper spinal cord perfusion and cerebral Flux showed different behaviors. Although spinal cord microcirculation was stable, macrocirculation declined at the end of the protocol, showing a loss of hemodynamic coherence. While flow in the descending aorta was zero during ischemia, reperfusion led to a recovery of aortic flow. Histopathological analysis revealed mild necrosis of the spinal cord with Kleinman-scores for the lower spinal cord between 0 and 2 and for the upper spinal cord between 0 and 1.
Figure 1: Placement of laser/Doppler needle probe in the spinal cord. (A) Surgical exposure of vertebral structures. (B) Puncture of the spinal cord using a vein catheter. (C) Insertion of the needle probe after removal of the inlay needle. (D) Fixation of the needle probe. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Exposure of the descending aorta and placement of flow probe and vessel loop. (A) Exposure of the descending aorta after mobilizing the apex of the left lung and dividing of the left-lateral part of the diaphragm. (B) Dividing of the surrounding tissue for surgical exposure. (C) Placement of an overhold around the descending aorta to secure proper circular exposure. (D) Placement of flow probe as well as vessel loop around the descending aorta. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Sample recordings of microcirculatory and macrohemodynamic signals during ischemia as well as reperfusion. Sample recordings of ECG, pressure in the ascending aorta as measured using a microtip-catheter, flow in the descending aorta as measured using an ultrasonic flow probe, spinal cord as well as cerebral microcirculatory FLUX as measured using laser/Doppler needle probes. (A) 50 s sample during ischemia induction by supra-celiac aortic cross-clamping. (B) 20 s sample during reperfusion induction by gentle re-opening of the aortic cross-clamp. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | ||
Spinal Cord Flux | 61.35 (41.96-89.70) | 6.78 (4.63-9.91) | 58.97 (40.33-86.22) | 66.05 (45.17-96.57) | 59.09 (40.41-86.40) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.878 | p = 0.777 | p = 0.886 | |
Cerebral Flux | 41.12 (28.17-60.04) | 71.73 (49.13-104.73) | 60.34 (41.33-88.10) | 59.91 (36.93-78.71) | 49.82 (34.12-72.74) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p = 0.023 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p = 0.001 | p = 0.045 | p = 0.173 | p = 0.341 | |
Spinal Cord Microperfusion (ml/min/g) | Upper spinal cord | 0.071 (0.058-0.087) | 0.063 (0.052-0.078) | 0.088 (0.072-0.11) | 0.082 (0.067-0.100) | 0.083 (0.068-0.102) |
Pairwise comparison M1 | p = 0.420 | p = 0.146 | p = 0.344 | p = 0.281 | ||
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | ||||||
Lower spinal cord | 0.079 (0.065-0.097) | 0.031 (0.026-0.039) | 0.111 (0.090-0.136) | 0.089 (0.073-0.110) | 0.105 (0.086-0.129) | |
Interaction Measurement Point · Spinal Cord Region: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.021 | p = 0.400 | p = 0.051 | |
Cardiac Output (l/min) | 4.15 (3.69-4.61) | 3.13 (2.67-3.60) | 3.30 (2.84-3.76) | 3.67 (3.20-4.13) | 2.67 (2.00-2.93) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point:: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.007 | p = 0.125 | p < 0.001 | |
Heart Rate (bpm) | 74.42 (53.70-95.15) | 131.09 (110.36-151.82) | 88.92 (68.19-109.65) | 80.62 (59.89-101.35) | 99.38 (78.65-120.11) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p = 0.002 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.314 | p = 0.666 | p = 0.092 | |
Stroke Volume (ml) | 55.50 (49.20-61.81) | 25.33 (19.03-31.64) | 37.00 (30.69-43.31) | 45.33 (39.03-51.64) | 27.17 (20.86-33.47) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.004 | p < 0.001 | |
Systolic Arterial Pressure Ascending Aorta (mmHg) | 94.36 (85.20-103.52) | 122.05 (112.89-131.20) | 76.72 (67.56-85.88) | 88.36 (79.20-97.52) | 73.36 (64.20-82.52) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.006 | p = 0.321 | p = 0.002 | |
Mean Arterial Pressure Ascending Aorta (mmHg) | 78.18 (68.68-87.67) | 107.29 (97.80-116.78) | 59.08 (49.58-68.57) | 70.38 (60.89-79.87) | 58.35 (48.85-67.84) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.005 | p = 0.217 | p = 0.004 | |
Diastolic Arterial Pressure Ascending Aorta (mmHg) | 59.20 (49.41-69.00) | 93.76 (83.97-103.56) | 45.18 (35.38-54.98) | 52.48 (42.69-62.28) | 45.33 (35.54-55.13) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.038 | p = 0.302 | p = 0.040 | |
Systemic Vascular Resistance (dyn x sec x cm-5) | 1421.13 (1236.94-1632.74) | 208089.94 (181128.10-239085.87) | 1335.36 (1162.29-1534.21) | 1412.62 (1229.54-1622.97) | 1807.46 (1573.21-2076.60) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p < 0.001 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.407 | p = 0.938 | p = 0.005 | |
Flow (l/min) Descending Aorta | 3.27 (0.96-5.58) | 0 | 3.27 (0.96-5.58) | 3.54 (1.23-5.85) | 4.54 (2.32-6.85) | |
Main Effect Measurement Point: p = 0.003 | Pairwise comparison M1 | p = 0.998 | p = 0.844 | p = 0.381 |
Table 1: Changes in hemodynamic parameters during the protocol. Values are given as baseline-adjusted estimated marginal means with 95% confidence intervals. Unadjusted p-values of F-tests of main effects of measurement point are given for each parameter as well as of interaction effects between region and measurement point for upper and lower spinal cord microperfusion. Unadjusted p-values of pairwise comparisons of individual measuring points with M1 are also presented. Measurement points are: M1 = Hemodynamic optimization prior ischemia/reperfusion, M2 = During ischemia, M3 = 1 h after reperfusion M4 = Hemodynamic optimization after ischemia/reperfusion, M5 = 4.5 h after induction of ischemia/reperfusion.
SCI induced by spinal cord ischemia is a major complication of aortic repair with tremendous impact on patient outcome1,2,3,4,10,11,12. Microcirculation-targeted therapies to prevent and treat SCI are most promising. The protocol provides a reproducible method for real-time spinal cord microcirculatory evaluation and offers the ability to evaluate effects of novel therapeutic approaches on spinal cord microcirculation under ischemia/reperfusion conditions.
There are some critical methodological steps in this experimental model. To prevent loss of animals, researchers must be experienced in anesthesiologic techniques (cerebrospinal fluid drainage insertion, sonographic vascular access and hemodynamic therapy during aortic exposure, aortic cross-clamping, and reperfusion) as well as in surgical techniques (sternotomy, vessel exposure, surgical exposure of the descending aorta). Insertion of the spinal cord needle probe requires experience, profound knowledge of the anatomy, and sound technical skills. However, in our experience, the learning curve is considerably steep, and most experienced researchers will achieve success in a short time, although multiple attempts must be avoided to prevent spinal cord injuries that could affect the methodology.
Another critical step is the change from the right lateral to supine position to prevent dislocation or damage of the spinal cord needle probe. For this maneuver, 4-5 persons are recommended, proper padding of the insertion site is essential, and meticulous caution should be taken not to dislocate the probe. Exposure of the descending aorta requires some critical steps as well. The apex of the left lung must be mobilized to allow gentle retraction of the left lung to expose the surgical field. In addition, the left-lateral part of the diaphragm should be dissected to facilitate exposure. During aortic preparation, optimal communication between those researchers performing surgery and those providing anesthesia and hemodynamic management is needed to ensure adequate cardiopulmonary stability. During aortic cross-clamping, manual compression of the inferior vena cava is recommended to reduce venous return. Without this maneuver, severe afterload increases may occur that could lead to deleterious myocardial injury39,40.
Reperfusion should be performed cautiously with fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes ready to use. During reperfusion, dramatic changes occur that may lead to severe hypotension, cardiac arrythmias, and circulatory failure41. However, cautious observation of hemodynamic behavior, prompt initiation of interventions, as well as use of a structured and gentle performance during this critical phase can prevent loss of animals. In addition, the use of ascending intervals of aortic cross-clamping, followed by time periods to improve regeneration, as used in the protocol, induces ischemic pre-conditioning effects that enhance hemodynamic stability during reperfusion42,43.
The model provides the ability to monitor spinal cord microcirculation in addition to macrocirculatory evaluation. Owing to the loss of hemodynamic coherence frequently seen in high-risk surgery and critically ill patients, direct evaluation of spinal cord microcirculation is necessary13,30. Sublingual microcirculation is often used to replace direct microcirculatory evaluation in the organ of interest44. However, dissociation between sublingual microcirculation and vital organs has been shown, emphasizing the value of direct microcirculatory evaluation in the spinal cord, as used in the experimental model45. Finally, the model has the advantage of real-time monitoring of spinal cord blood flow in comparison to fluorescent microsphere evaluation, which is limited by intermittent use and post-mortem analysis46. The impact of real-time assessment can best be seen when looking at example recordings during ischemia as well as reperfusion induction, showing rapid changes in spinal cord microperfusion. However, it should be considered that laser-Doppler probe insertion in the spinal cord could lead to small, but considerable, injuries of the spinal cord.
As the integrity of the spinal cord could possibly influence the hemodynamic parameters, this could be a disadvantage of the method. However, the use of laser-Doppler techniques to assess spinal cord microperfusion have been previously used47,48,49,50. Moreover, although we did not observe hemodynamic changes following probe insertion, we could not rule out hemodynamic effects induced by this method. It should be noted that hemodynamic alterations may also be induced by use of microsphere injections, which would, however, be of minor importance in large animals51. Moreover, sensory or motor function may be affected by probe insertion and therefore, use of sensory- or motor-evoked potential assessment should be performed with caution in combination with laser-Doppler evaluation.
In this regard, the microsphere injection technique might be advantageous. In addition, the techniques should not be used for chronic trials; however, this is also true for microsphere injections, which are limited to acute trials because they are dependent on post-mortem tissue analysis. Most studies using laser-Doppler techniques were performed in small animals47,48,49,50 Here, we describe a technique for use in pigs, as a large animal model, which could facilitate translation to clinical studies. The paramedian-introducing technique overcomes the problem of large spinous processes in pigs, which complicates proper placement of spinal cord probes. Moreover, the technique has the advantage that laminectomy or removal of dura tissue is not needed, preventing a constant loss of liquor. As the cerebrospinal fluid pressure has a tremendous impact on spinal cord perfusion32, the model has the advantage of measuring and optimizing cerebrospinal fluid pressure in addition to spinal cord microperfusion and will address the effect of cerebrospinal fluid pressure on spinal cord microperfusion in future projects.
The protocol has some limitations that should be mentioned. Absolute values of spinal cord Flux differ considerably between animals due to differences in exact probe position and proximity of larger spinal cord vessels. Therefore, baseline adjustments should be performed when comparing values. However, intra-individual differences between measurement points are highly consistent as long as meticulous caution is exercised to avoid movements of the needle probe during the protocol. Moreover, this study was not designed as a comparison study between the Laser-Doppler and the fluorescent microsphere methods. Given the number of animals, we did not perform a correlation analysis between these two methods.
Although both methods showed a comparable behavior with significant reductions during ischemia and recovery after reperfusion for both, a comparison of the methods should be addressed using properly designed studies in the future. Nevertheless, the use of microspheres additionally enabled evaluation of different behaviors for upper and lower spinal cord microperfusion. In addition, histopathological analysis revealed only moderate spinal cord necrosis compared to other models of spinal cord ischemia37. Prolonging the duration of ischemia as well as omitting pre-conditioning measures may lead to more severe changes that may be desired by some researchers. Although we evaluated only mild histopathological changes, this may be different with a longer duration of ischemia. In this regard, a longer period after ischemia/reperfusion prior to termination of the protocol may have also led to more severe histopathological changes. However, the protocol enabled hemodynamic stability one hour after reperfusion without the need for additional or even continuous inotrope or vasopressor application.
For the evaluation of different hemodynamic interventions, this model provides optimal conditions. Although we used fluid optimization as an example of hemodynamic intervention, other approaches may be evaluated with this method. While this protocol provides microcirculatory evaluation in a model of ischemia/reperfusion, the duration of ischemia limits the evaluation of therapeutic approaches during ischemia prior to reperfusion. Moreover, during ischemia, a variation in hemodynamic changes occurred (e.g., hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, bradycardia, as well as cardiac arrythmias). Manual inflow occlusion further affects hemodynamic variables during this phase. Therefore, the protocol is not recommended for the evaluation of therapeutic approaches during ischemia prior to reperfusion. However, other experimental settings, such as the use of embolization or ligation techniques, may be combined with spinal cord laser/Doppler needle probe evaluation, as described in this protocol.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors would like to thank Lena Brix, V.M.D, Institute of Animal Research, Hannover Medical School, as well as Mrs. Jutta Dammann, Facility of Research Animal Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, for providing pre- and perioperative animal care and their technical assistance on animal handling. The authors would further like to thank Dr. Daniel Manzoni, Department of Vascular Surgery, Hôpital Kirchberg, Luxembourg, for his technical assistance.
CardioMed Flowmeter | Medistim AS, Oslo, Norway | CM4000 | Flowmeter for Flow-Probe Femoral Artery |
CardioMed Flow-Probe, 5mm | Medistim AS, Oslo, Norway | PS100051 | Flow-Probe Femoral Artery |
COnfidence probe, | Transonic Systems Inc., Ithaca, NY, USA | MA16PAU | Flow-Probe Aorta |
16 mm liners | |||
DIVA Sevoflurane Vapor | Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany | Vapor | |
Hotline Level 1 Fluid Warmer | Smiths Medical Germany GmbH, Grasbrunn, Germany | HL-90-DE-230 | Fluid Warmer |
Infinity Delta | Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany | Basic Monitoring Hardware | |
Infinity Hemo | Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany | Basic Pressure Monitoring and Pulmonary Thermodilution Hardware | |
LabChart Pro | ADInstruments Ltd., Oxford, UK | v8.1.16 | Synchronic Laser-Doppler, Blood Pressure, ECG and Blood-Flow Aquisition Software |
LiquoGuard 7 | Möller Medical GmbH, Fulda, Germany | Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage System | |
Millar Micro-Tip Pressure Catheter (5F, Single, Curved, 120cm, PU/WD) | ADInstruments Ltd., Oxford, UK | SPR-350 | Pressure-Tip Catheter Aorta |
moor VMS LDF | moor Instruments, Devon, UK | Designated Laser-Doppler Hardware | |
moor VMS Research Software | moor Instruments, Devon, UK | Designated Laser-Doppler Software | |
Perivascular Flow Module | Transonic Systems Inc., Ithaca, NY, USA | TS 420 | Flow-Module for Flow-Probe Aorta |
PiCCO 2, Science Version | Getinge AB, Göteborg, Sweden | v. 6.0 | Blood Pressure and Transcardiopulmonary Monitoring Hard- and Software |
PiCCO 5 Fr. 20cm | Getinge AB, Göteborg, Sweden | Thermistor-tipped Arterial Line | |
PowerLab | ADInstruments Ltd., Oxford, UK | PL 3516 | Synchronic Laser-Doppler, Blood Pressure, ECG and Blood-Flow Aquisition Hardware |
QuadBridgeAmp | ADInstruments Ltd., Oxford, UK | FE 224 | Four Channel Bridge Amplifier for Laser-Doppler and Invasive Blood Pressure Aquisition |
Silverline | Spiegelberg, Hamburg, Germany | ELD33.010.02 | Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage |
SPSS statistical software package | IBM SPSS Statistics Inc., Armonk, New York, USA | v. 27 | Statistical Software |
Twinwarm Warming System | Moeck & Moeck GmbH, Hamburg, Germany | 12TW921DE | Warming System |
Universal II Warming Blanket | Moeck & Moeck GmbH, Hamburg, Germany | 906 | Warming Blanket |
VP 3 Probe, 8mm length (individually manufactured) | moor Instruments, Devon, UK | Laser-Doppler Probe | |
Zeus | Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany | Anesthesia Machine |