Histologic comparison of the uterine pathologic effects of erythropoietin and U-74389G

Constantinos Tsompos (1Department of Gynecology, General Hospital of Athens “G. Gennimatas”, 154 Mesogeion avenue, 11527 Athens, Hellas)
Constantinos Panoulis (22nd Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aretaieio Hospital, University of Athens School of Medicine, 76 Vas. Sofias avenue, 11528 Athens, Hellas)
Constantinos Zografos (3Department of Surgery, General Hospital of Laiko, University of Athens School of Medicine, 17 Saint Thomas street, 11527 Athens, Hellas)
GeorgeC Zografos (41st Department of Surgery, General Hospital of Ippokrateio, University of Athens School of Medicine, 114 Vas. Sofias avenue, 11527 Athens, Hellas)
Apostolos Papalois (5a2nd Department of Surgery, Aretaieio Hospital, University of Athens School of Medicine, 76 Vas. Sofias avenue, 11528 Athens, Hellas 5bEuropean University Cyprus, School of Medicine, 6 Diogenous street, 2404 Nicosia, Cyprus)

MAGNA MEDICA: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan
Vol 13, No 1 (2026): FEBRUARY

Background: This manuscript compared the effects at uterine pathology (UP), after processing with either the drug erythropoietin hormone (Epo), or the lazaroid antioxidant agent (L) one U-74389G. This comparison was provided by outcomes of 2 preceding branches.Objective: Both studies estimated the effect, after each drug use in a planned uterine ischemia -  reperfusion (UIR) mice experimental setting.Methods: Both principal experiment timepoints, the uterine histology was evaluated were the min 60th after reperfusion (A, C, E groups) and also the min 120th after reperfusion (B, D, F groups). Along, A & B groups were placebo, C & D groups were processed by Epo and E & F groups after the L process.Results: The one study-branch of Epo has presented a hardly significant recessing potency for the total UP within the “lesion-free” grade alteration by -0.0916667 [-0.1907629 - 0.0074296] (p-values = 0.0583). However, the other study-branch of U-74389G presented a respective non-significant accentuation of the total UP within the “lesion-free” grade alteration by 0.2229748 [-0.1376592 - 0.5836089] (p-value = 0.4940). Both branch studies got co-evaluated as they belong to a common experiment. Their outcome was that Epo seems to ameliorate the UP status, whereas L seems to deteriorate it; however, their discrepancy seems to be non-significant (p-value = 0.0677).Conclusion: There is a slight non-significant superiority of Epo than L in UIR pathology restoration (p-value = 0.0677), possibly useful in several clinical situations.