Fernando 22010112130120 Lap.KTI Bab7
42
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
1.
WHO. Methanol Poisoning Outbreaks [Internet]. 2011. Available from:
http://www.who.int/environmental_health_emergencies/poisoning/methano
l_information.pdf
2.
Barceloux DG, Krenzelok EP, Olson K, Watson W. American Academy of
Clinical Toxicology Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Ethylene
Glycol Poisoning. Ad Hoc Committee. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol.
1999;37(5):537–60.
3.
Goldfrank L. Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies. 9th ed. 2011.
4.
El-Bakary A a, El-Dakrory S a, Attalla SM, Hasanein N a, Malek H a.
Ranitidine as an alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor in acute methanol toxicity
in rats. Hum Exp Toxicol [Internet]. 2010;29(2):93–101. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20026516
5.
Li FX, Lu J, Xu YJ, Tong ZQ, Nie CL HR. Formaldehyde-mediated
chronic damage may be related to sporadic neurodegeneration. 2008;
6.
Yang MF, Lu J, Miao JY, Rizak J, Yang JZ, Zhai RW, et al. Alzheimer’s
Disease and Methanol Toxicity (Part 1): Chronic Methanol Feeding Led to
Memory Impairments and Tau Hyperphosphorylation in Mice. 2014;
7.
Rubinstein D, Escott E, Kelly JP. Methanol intoxication with putaminal
and white matter necrosis: MR and CT findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
[Internet]. 1995;16(7):1492–4. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7484638
8.
Susan Standring, PhD Ds. Gray’s Anatomy 40th edition [Internet].
Churchill Livingstone. 2009. Available from:
http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/anatomy/gray-anatomy-expertconsult/9780443066849/
9.
Bartsch T. The Clinical Neurobiology of the Hippocampus: An Integrative
View, Volume 151 [Internet]. OUP Oxford; 2012 [cited 2016 Jan 14]. 310
p. Available from:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_J0PcQtq5m8C&pgis=1
10.
Wright A. Section 4: Homeostasis and Higher Brain Function, Chapter 5.
42
Limbic System: Hippocampus. In: Neuroscience Online: an Electronic
Textbook for Neuroscience. 1997.
11.
Catani M, Dell’Acqua F, Thiebaut de Schotten M. A revised limbic system
model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews. 2013. p. 1724–37.
12.
Rolls ET. Limbic systems for emotion and for memory, but no single
limbic system. Cortex. 2015. p. 119–57.
13.
Mega MS, Cummings JL, Salloway S, Malloy P. The limbic system: an
anatomic, phylogenetic, and clinical perspective. J Neuropsychiatry Clin
Neurosci. 1997;9(3):315–30.
14.
Isaacson RL, Neil J Smelser, Paul B Baltes. Limbic System. Int Encycl Soc
Behav Sci [Internet]. 2001;2:8858–62. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B7MRM-4MT09VJ4XS/2/9e7fa303f8769577cb0e460f32fb60c7
15.
Barger N, Hanson KL, Teffer K, Schenker-Ahmed NM, Katerina
semendeferi. Evidence for evolutionary specialization in human limbic
structures. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2014;8(707):277. Available
from:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00277/abstract\np
apers3://publication/doi/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00277
16.
Shorvon S. The Human Hippocampus. Functional Anatomy,
Vascularization and Serial Sections with MRI. J Anat. 2000;197:513–8.
17.
Isaacson RL, Larry RS. Hippocampus. Encycl Neurosci [Internet].
2004;1119–27. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008045046902026X
18.
Andersen P, Morris R, Amaral D, Bliss T, O’ Keefe J. The Hippocampus
Book. The Hippocampus Book. 2009. 1-852 p.
19.
Papp E, Leergaard B, Calabrese E, Johnson G BJ. Waxholm space atlas of
the sprague dawley rat brain. National Institutes of Health Public Access.
2014.
20.
Paulsen F WJ. Sobotta atlas of human anatomy Volume 1 Head, Neck,
Upper Limb. 14th Ed. 2006.
43
21.
Hall JE. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 13th Ed. 2015.
22.
Soebowo, Sarjadi, Wijaya I, Amarwati S, Miranti I PA. Pedoman Kuliah
Mahasiswa Patologi Anatomi 1. 2014.
23.
Babu KM, Rosenbaum CD, Boyer EW. Head CT in patient with metabolic
acidosis. J Med Toxicol [Internet]. 2008;4(4):275–6. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031380
24.
Troncoso J, Rubio A, Fowler DR. Essential Forensic Neuropathology.
2010.
25.
Auer RN. Effect of Age and Sex on N-Methyl-D-Aspartate AntagonistInduced Neuronal Necrosis in Rats. Stroke [Internet]. 1996;27(4):743–6.
Available from: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/27/4/743.full
26.
Fuchs E, Flugge G, Czeh B. Remodeling of neuronal networks by stress.
Front Biosci. 2006;11(August 2015):2746–58.
27.
Upton JW, Kaiser WJ, Mocarski ES. Virus inhibition of RIP3-dependent
necrosis. Cell Host Microbe. 2010;7(4):302–13.
28.
Rohleder N, Kirschbaum C. Effects of nutrition on neuro-endocrine stress
responses. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care [Internet]. 2007;10(4):504–10.
Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17563471
29.
Armstrong D, Halliday W, Hawkings C, Takashima S. Pediatric
Neuropathology: A Text-Atlas [Internet]. Springer Science & Business
Media; 2008 [cited 2016 Jan 25]. 443 p. Available from:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VJY20uS-BagC&pgis=1
30.
Methanol Toxicological Overview [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 19].
Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/f
ile/456293/Methanol_TO_PHE_260815.pdf
31.
ACUTE TOXICITY SUMMARY METHANOL [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan
19]. Available from: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/pdf/67561a.pdf
32.
McCoy HG, Cipolle RJ, Ehlers SM, Sawchuk RJ, Zaske DE. Severe
methanol poisoning. Application of a pharmacokinetic model for ethanol
therapy and hemodialysis. Am J Med. 1979;67(5):804–7.
33.
Korabathina K. Methanol Toxicity [Internet]. 2015. Available from:
44
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1174890-overview
34.
Dally AM. Fatal Methanol Intoxication – Two Exceptional Cases.
Toxichem Krimtech. 2015;
35.
Kraut JA, Kurtz I. Toxic alcohol ingestions: Clinical features, Diagnosis,
and management. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(1):208–25.
36.
Acid-Base Physiology: 8.6 Metabolic Acidosis due to Drugs and Toxins
[Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 19]. Available from:
http://www.anaesthesiamcq.com/AcidBaseBook/ab8_6a.php
37.
Strum WB. Ranitidine. JAMA [Internet]. 1983;250(14):1894–6. Available
from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=388242
38.
van Hecken AM, Tjandramaga TB, Mullie A, Verbesselt R, de Schepper
PJ. Ranitidine: single dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability in
man. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1982;14(2):195–200.
39.
Ranitidine [Internet]. 2016. Available from:
http://www.drugs.com/pro/ranitidine.html
40.
Ding J. Handbook of Metabolic Pathways of Xenobiotics. 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons; 2014.
41.
Azeemuddin M, Naqi R. Case Series MRI findings in methanol
intoxication : a report of three cases. :1099–101.
42.
Lwanga S.K., Lemeshow S. Sample size determination in health studies A
practicle manual. World Health Organization. 1991. p. 38.
43.
WHO. Methanol poisoning outbreaks. 2014;
44.
Nabila N. Pengaruh Pemberian Metanol Dan Etanolterhadap Tingkat
Kerusakan Sel Hepar Tikus Wistar. 2011;1–16.
45.
Patnaik R, Mohanty S SH. Blockade of histamine H2 receptors attenuate
blood-brain barrier permeability, cerebral blood flow disturbances, edema
formation and cell reactions following hyperthermic brain injury in the rat.
2000;
46.
Ding D, Moskowitz SI, Li R, Lee SB, Esteban M, Tomaselli K, et al.
Acidosis induces necrosis and apoptosis of cultured hippocampal neurons.
Exp Neurol [Internet]. 2000;162(1):1–12. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10716884
45
47.
Singh M, Bhatia R. Emergencies in Neurology. Byword Books Private
Limited; 2011. 384 p
46
Lampiran
Lampiran 1. Hasil Analisis SPSS
Homogenitas Berat Badan
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
bb_tikus
Levene Statistic
df1
df2
1.365
2
Sig.
12
.292
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
N
bb_tikus
Missing
Percent
15
N
100.0%
Total
Percent
0
N
0.0%
Percent
15
100.0%
Descriptives
Statistic
bb_tikus
Mean
188.47
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
181.93
Mean
Upper Bound
195.01
5% Trimmed Mean
188.02
Median
187.00
Variance
Std. Error
3.049
139.410
Std. Deviation
11.807
Minimum
172
Maximum
213
Range
41
Interquartile Range
19
Skewness
Kurtosis
Tests of Normality
.431
.580
-.463
1.121
47
a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
bb_tikus
df
.124
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
15
Statistic
.200
*
df
.956
Sig.
15
.629
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
N
nekrosis_a * nekrosis_p
Missing
Percent
15
N
Total
Percent
100.0%
0
N
0.0%
Percent
15
100.0%
nekrosis_a * nekrosis_p Crosstabulation
Count
nekrosis_p
rendah
nekrosis_a
sedang
tinggi
sangat tinggi
Total
rendah
7
1
0
0
8
sedang
0
2
0
0
2
tinggi
0
0
4
0
4
sangat tinggi
0
0
0
1
1
7
3
4
1
15
Total
Symmetric Measures
Asymptotic
Standardized
Value
Measure of Agreement
Kappa
N of Valid Cases
.897
Error
a
Approximate
Approximate T
.099
15
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Means
Case Processing Summary
Cases
b
5.343
Significance
.000
48
Included
N
nekrosis_p * perlakuan
Excluded
Percent
15
N
100.0%
Total
Percent
0
N
0.0%
Percent
15
100.0%
Report
nekrosis_p
perlakuan
Mean
Std. Deviation
Median
Minimum
Maximum
kontrol negatif
1.20
.447
1.00 rendah
sedang
kontrol positif
3.20
.447
3.00 tinggi
sangat tinggi
perlakuan
1.40
.548
1.00 rendah
sedang
Total
1.93
1.033
2.00 rendah
sangat tinggi
Explore
perlakuan
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
N
Percent
kontrol negatif
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
kontrol positif
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
perlakuan
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
Descriptives
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
kontrol negatif
Statistic
Mean
Std. Error
1.20
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
.64
Mean
Upper Bound
1.76
5% Trimmed Mean
1.17
Median
1.00
Variance
.200
Std. Deviation
.447
Minimum
1
Maximum
2
Range
1
Interquartile Range
1
Skewness
2.236
.200
.913
49
Kurtosis
kontrol positif
perlakuan
Mean
5.000
2.000
3.20
.200
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
2.64
Mean
Upper Bound
3.76
5% Trimmed Mean
3.17
Median
3.00
Variance
.200
Std. Deviation
.447
Minimum
3
Maximum
4
Range
1
Interquartile Range
1
Skewness
2.236
.913
Kurtosis
5.000
2.000
1.40
.245
Mean
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
.72
Mean
Upper Bound
2.08
5% Trimmed Mean
1.39
Median
1.00
Variance
.300
Std. Deviation
.548
Minimum
1
Maximum
2
Range
1
Interquartile Range
1
Skewness
Kurtosis
.609
.913
-3.333
2.000
Tests of Normality
a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
Statistic
df
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
kontrol negatif
.473
5
.001
.552
5
.000
kontrol positif
.473
5
.001
.552
5
.000
perlakuan
.367
5
.026
.684
5
.006
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
NPar Tests
50
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
kontrol negatif
5
5.00
kontrol positif
5
13.00
perlakuan
5
6.00
Total
Test Statistics
15
a,b
nekrosis_p
Chi-Square
10.857
df
2
Asymp. Sig.
.004
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable:
perlakuan
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
kontrol negatif
5
3.00
15.00
kontrol positif
5
8.00
40.00
Total
10
a
Test Statistics
nekrosis_p
Mann-Whitney U
.000
Wilcoxon W
15.000
Z
-2.785
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
a. Grouping Variable: perlakuan
b. Not corrected for ties.
NPar Tests
.005
.008
b
51
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
kontrol negatif
5
5.00
25.00
perlakuan
5
6.00
30.00
Total
10
a
Test Statistics
nekrosis_p
Mann-Whitney U
10.000
Wilcoxon W
25.000
Z
-.655
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.513
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
.690
b
a. Grouping Variable: perlakuan
b. Not corrected for ties.
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
kontrol positif
5
8.00
40.00
perlakuan
5
3.00
15.00
Total
10
a
Test Statistics
nekrosis_p
Mann-Whitney U
.000
Wilcoxon W
15.000
Z
-2.739
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
a. Grouping Variable: perlakuan
b. Not corrected for ties.
.006
.008
b
52
Lampiran 2. Cara kerja sediaan histopatologi
1) Menyiapkan wadah yang di isi dengan larutan formalin 10% buffer dengan
minimal lima kali volume jaringan
2) Testis yang telah diambil, segera dimasukkan ke dalam wadah tersebut
3) Memberi identitas pada semua wadah dengan identitas masing-masing
kelompok perlakuan
4) Dikirim ke Sentra Diagnostik Patologi Anatomi disertai dengan formulir
pengantar
5) Preparat kemudian dipotong dengan ketebalan maksimal 3-4 cm
6) Setelah dipotong diletakkan di dalam kaset jaringan, dan dimasukkan ke
wadah yang berisi formalin 10% buffer
7) Dilakukan proses pembuatan blok parafin, kemudian didinginkan di dalam
lemari es
8) Blok parafin dipotong menjadi lebih tipis menggunakan mikrotom sesuai
kebutuhan
9) Pita parafin dilebarkan dengan ditempelkan langsung pada kaca benda yang
telah dibasahi dengan air
10) Dimulai dengan proses pengecatan Hematoksilin dan Eosin (HE)
11) Perparat diberi cat Hematoksilin
12) Kemudian didiferensiasi dengan menggunakan air kran
13) Diberi cat Eosin
14) Kemudian di dehidrasi menggunakan alkohol 70%
15) Pada proses “clearing” menggunakan larutan xylol
16) Mouting adalah tahap terakhir yang kemudian dapat diamati di mikroskop
53
Lampiran 3. Ethical Clearance
54
Lampiran 4. Surat Keterangan Penelitian
55
Lampiran 5. Hasil Pengamatan Nekrosis Sel Hipokampus
Subjek
Jumlah Nekrosis (persen)
Kategori
Kontrol Negatif 1
6
1
Kontrol Negatif 2
17
1
Kontrol Negatif 3
11
1
Kontrol Negatif 4
26
2
Kontrol Negatif 5
9
1
Kontrol Positif 1
51
3
Kontrol Positif 2
52
3
Kontrol Positif 3
83
4
Kontrol Positif 4
59
3
Kontrol Positif 5
64
3
Perlakuan 1
32
2
Perlakuan 2
39
2
Perlakuan 3
12
1
Perlakuan 4
23
1
Perlakuan 5
21
1
56
Lampiran 6. Dokumentasi Penelitian
57
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
1.
WHO. Methanol Poisoning Outbreaks [Internet]. 2011. Available from:
http://www.who.int/environmental_health_emergencies/poisoning/methano
l_information.pdf
2.
Barceloux DG, Krenzelok EP, Olson K, Watson W. American Academy of
Clinical Toxicology Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Ethylene
Glycol Poisoning. Ad Hoc Committee. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol.
1999;37(5):537–60.
3.
Goldfrank L. Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies. 9th ed. 2011.
4.
El-Bakary A a, El-Dakrory S a, Attalla SM, Hasanein N a, Malek H a.
Ranitidine as an alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor in acute methanol toxicity
in rats. Hum Exp Toxicol [Internet]. 2010;29(2):93–101. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20026516
5.
Li FX, Lu J, Xu YJ, Tong ZQ, Nie CL HR. Formaldehyde-mediated
chronic damage may be related to sporadic neurodegeneration. 2008;
6.
Yang MF, Lu J, Miao JY, Rizak J, Yang JZ, Zhai RW, et al. Alzheimer’s
Disease and Methanol Toxicity (Part 1): Chronic Methanol Feeding Led to
Memory Impairments and Tau Hyperphosphorylation in Mice. 2014;
7.
Rubinstein D, Escott E, Kelly JP. Methanol intoxication with putaminal
and white matter necrosis: MR and CT findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
[Internet]. 1995;16(7):1492–4. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7484638
8.
Susan Standring, PhD Ds. Gray’s Anatomy 40th edition [Internet].
Churchill Livingstone. 2009. Available from:
http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/anatomy/gray-anatomy-expertconsult/9780443066849/
9.
Bartsch T. The Clinical Neurobiology of the Hippocampus: An Integrative
View, Volume 151 [Internet]. OUP Oxford; 2012 [cited 2016 Jan 14]. 310
p. Available from:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_J0PcQtq5m8C&pgis=1
10.
Wright A. Section 4: Homeostasis and Higher Brain Function, Chapter 5.
42
Limbic System: Hippocampus. In: Neuroscience Online: an Electronic
Textbook for Neuroscience. 1997.
11.
Catani M, Dell’Acqua F, Thiebaut de Schotten M. A revised limbic system
model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews. 2013. p. 1724–37.
12.
Rolls ET. Limbic systems for emotion and for memory, but no single
limbic system. Cortex. 2015. p. 119–57.
13.
Mega MS, Cummings JL, Salloway S, Malloy P. The limbic system: an
anatomic, phylogenetic, and clinical perspective. J Neuropsychiatry Clin
Neurosci. 1997;9(3):315–30.
14.
Isaacson RL, Neil J Smelser, Paul B Baltes. Limbic System. Int Encycl Soc
Behav Sci [Internet]. 2001;2:8858–62. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B7MRM-4MT09VJ4XS/2/9e7fa303f8769577cb0e460f32fb60c7
15.
Barger N, Hanson KL, Teffer K, Schenker-Ahmed NM, Katerina
semendeferi. Evidence for evolutionary specialization in human limbic
structures. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2014;8(707):277. Available
from:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00277/abstract\np
apers3://publication/doi/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00277
16.
Shorvon S. The Human Hippocampus. Functional Anatomy,
Vascularization and Serial Sections with MRI. J Anat. 2000;197:513–8.
17.
Isaacson RL, Larry RS. Hippocampus. Encycl Neurosci [Internet].
2004;1119–27. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008045046902026X
18.
Andersen P, Morris R, Amaral D, Bliss T, O’ Keefe J. The Hippocampus
Book. The Hippocampus Book. 2009. 1-852 p.
19.
Papp E, Leergaard B, Calabrese E, Johnson G BJ. Waxholm space atlas of
the sprague dawley rat brain. National Institutes of Health Public Access.
2014.
20.
Paulsen F WJ. Sobotta atlas of human anatomy Volume 1 Head, Neck,
Upper Limb. 14th Ed. 2006.
43
21.
Hall JE. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 13th Ed. 2015.
22.
Soebowo, Sarjadi, Wijaya I, Amarwati S, Miranti I PA. Pedoman Kuliah
Mahasiswa Patologi Anatomi 1. 2014.
23.
Babu KM, Rosenbaum CD, Boyer EW. Head CT in patient with metabolic
acidosis. J Med Toxicol [Internet]. 2008;4(4):275–6. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031380
24.
Troncoso J, Rubio A, Fowler DR. Essential Forensic Neuropathology.
2010.
25.
Auer RN. Effect of Age and Sex on N-Methyl-D-Aspartate AntagonistInduced Neuronal Necrosis in Rats. Stroke [Internet]. 1996;27(4):743–6.
Available from: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/27/4/743.full
26.
Fuchs E, Flugge G, Czeh B. Remodeling of neuronal networks by stress.
Front Biosci. 2006;11(August 2015):2746–58.
27.
Upton JW, Kaiser WJ, Mocarski ES. Virus inhibition of RIP3-dependent
necrosis. Cell Host Microbe. 2010;7(4):302–13.
28.
Rohleder N, Kirschbaum C. Effects of nutrition on neuro-endocrine stress
responses. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care [Internet]. 2007;10(4):504–10.
Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17563471
29.
Armstrong D, Halliday W, Hawkings C, Takashima S. Pediatric
Neuropathology: A Text-Atlas [Internet]. Springer Science & Business
Media; 2008 [cited 2016 Jan 25]. 443 p. Available from:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VJY20uS-BagC&pgis=1
30.
Methanol Toxicological Overview [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 19].
Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/f
ile/456293/Methanol_TO_PHE_260815.pdf
31.
ACUTE TOXICITY SUMMARY METHANOL [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan
19]. Available from: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/pdf/67561a.pdf
32.
McCoy HG, Cipolle RJ, Ehlers SM, Sawchuk RJ, Zaske DE. Severe
methanol poisoning. Application of a pharmacokinetic model for ethanol
therapy and hemodialysis. Am J Med. 1979;67(5):804–7.
33.
Korabathina K. Methanol Toxicity [Internet]. 2015. Available from:
44
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1174890-overview
34.
Dally AM. Fatal Methanol Intoxication – Two Exceptional Cases.
Toxichem Krimtech. 2015;
35.
Kraut JA, Kurtz I. Toxic alcohol ingestions: Clinical features, Diagnosis,
and management. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(1):208–25.
36.
Acid-Base Physiology: 8.6 Metabolic Acidosis due to Drugs and Toxins
[Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 19]. Available from:
http://www.anaesthesiamcq.com/AcidBaseBook/ab8_6a.php
37.
Strum WB. Ranitidine. JAMA [Internet]. 1983;250(14):1894–6. Available
from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=388242
38.
van Hecken AM, Tjandramaga TB, Mullie A, Verbesselt R, de Schepper
PJ. Ranitidine: single dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability in
man. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1982;14(2):195–200.
39.
Ranitidine [Internet]. 2016. Available from:
http://www.drugs.com/pro/ranitidine.html
40.
Ding J. Handbook of Metabolic Pathways of Xenobiotics. 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons; 2014.
41.
Azeemuddin M, Naqi R. Case Series MRI findings in methanol
intoxication : a report of three cases. :1099–101.
42.
Lwanga S.K., Lemeshow S. Sample size determination in health studies A
practicle manual. World Health Organization. 1991. p. 38.
43.
WHO. Methanol poisoning outbreaks. 2014;
44.
Nabila N. Pengaruh Pemberian Metanol Dan Etanolterhadap Tingkat
Kerusakan Sel Hepar Tikus Wistar. 2011;1–16.
45.
Patnaik R, Mohanty S SH. Blockade of histamine H2 receptors attenuate
blood-brain barrier permeability, cerebral blood flow disturbances, edema
formation and cell reactions following hyperthermic brain injury in the rat.
2000;
46.
Ding D, Moskowitz SI, Li R, Lee SB, Esteban M, Tomaselli K, et al.
Acidosis induces necrosis and apoptosis of cultured hippocampal neurons.
Exp Neurol [Internet]. 2000;162(1):1–12. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10716884
45
47.
Singh M, Bhatia R. Emergencies in Neurology. Byword Books Private
Limited; 2011. 384 p
46
Lampiran
Lampiran 1. Hasil Analisis SPSS
Homogenitas Berat Badan
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
bb_tikus
Levene Statistic
df1
df2
1.365
2
Sig.
12
.292
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
N
bb_tikus
Missing
Percent
15
N
100.0%
Total
Percent
0
N
0.0%
Percent
15
100.0%
Descriptives
Statistic
bb_tikus
Mean
188.47
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
181.93
Mean
Upper Bound
195.01
5% Trimmed Mean
188.02
Median
187.00
Variance
Std. Error
3.049
139.410
Std. Deviation
11.807
Minimum
172
Maximum
213
Range
41
Interquartile Range
19
Skewness
Kurtosis
Tests of Normality
.431
.580
-.463
1.121
47
a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
bb_tikus
df
.124
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
15
Statistic
.200
*
df
.956
Sig.
15
.629
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
N
nekrosis_a * nekrosis_p
Missing
Percent
15
N
Total
Percent
100.0%
0
N
0.0%
Percent
15
100.0%
nekrosis_a * nekrosis_p Crosstabulation
Count
nekrosis_p
rendah
nekrosis_a
sedang
tinggi
sangat tinggi
Total
rendah
7
1
0
0
8
sedang
0
2
0
0
2
tinggi
0
0
4
0
4
sangat tinggi
0
0
0
1
1
7
3
4
1
15
Total
Symmetric Measures
Asymptotic
Standardized
Value
Measure of Agreement
Kappa
N of Valid Cases
.897
Error
a
Approximate
Approximate T
.099
15
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Means
Case Processing Summary
Cases
b
5.343
Significance
.000
48
Included
N
nekrosis_p * perlakuan
Excluded
Percent
15
N
100.0%
Total
Percent
0
N
0.0%
Percent
15
100.0%
Report
nekrosis_p
perlakuan
Mean
Std. Deviation
Median
Minimum
Maximum
kontrol negatif
1.20
.447
1.00 rendah
sedang
kontrol positif
3.20
.447
3.00 tinggi
sangat tinggi
perlakuan
1.40
.548
1.00 rendah
sedang
Total
1.93
1.033
2.00 rendah
sangat tinggi
Explore
perlakuan
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
N
Percent
kontrol negatif
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
kontrol positif
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
perlakuan
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
Descriptives
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
kontrol negatif
Statistic
Mean
Std. Error
1.20
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
.64
Mean
Upper Bound
1.76
5% Trimmed Mean
1.17
Median
1.00
Variance
.200
Std. Deviation
.447
Minimum
1
Maximum
2
Range
1
Interquartile Range
1
Skewness
2.236
.200
.913
49
Kurtosis
kontrol positif
perlakuan
Mean
5.000
2.000
3.20
.200
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
2.64
Mean
Upper Bound
3.76
5% Trimmed Mean
3.17
Median
3.00
Variance
.200
Std. Deviation
.447
Minimum
3
Maximum
4
Range
1
Interquartile Range
1
Skewness
2.236
.913
Kurtosis
5.000
2.000
1.40
.245
Mean
95% Confidence Interval for
Lower Bound
.72
Mean
Upper Bound
2.08
5% Trimmed Mean
1.39
Median
1.00
Variance
.300
Std. Deviation
.548
Minimum
1
Maximum
2
Range
1
Interquartile Range
1
Skewness
Kurtosis
.609
.913
-3.333
2.000
Tests of Normality
a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
Statistic
df
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
kontrol negatif
.473
5
.001
.552
5
.000
kontrol positif
.473
5
.001
.552
5
.000
perlakuan
.367
5
.026
.684
5
.006
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
NPar Tests
50
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
kontrol negatif
5
5.00
kontrol positif
5
13.00
perlakuan
5
6.00
Total
Test Statistics
15
a,b
nekrosis_p
Chi-Square
10.857
df
2
Asymp. Sig.
.004
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable:
perlakuan
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
kontrol negatif
5
3.00
15.00
kontrol positif
5
8.00
40.00
Total
10
a
Test Statistics
nekrosis_p
Mann-Whitney U
.000
Wilcoxon W
15.000
Z
-2.785
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
a. Grouping Variable: perlakuan
b. Not corrected for ties.
NPar Tests
.005
.008
b
51
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
kontrol negatif
5
5.00
25.00
perlakuan
5
6.00
30.00
Total
10
a
Test Statistics
nekrosis_p
Mann-Whitney U
10.000
Wilcoxon W
25.000
Z
-.655
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.513
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
.690
b
a. Grouping Variable: perlakuan
b. Not corrected for ties.
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
perlakuan
nekrosis_p
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
kontrol positif
5
8.00
40.00
perlakuan
5
3.00
15.00
Total
10
a
Test Statistics
nekrosis_p
Mann-Whitney U
.000
Wilcoxon W
15.000
Z
-2.739
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
a. Grouping Variable: perlakuan
b. Not corrected for ties.
.006
.008
b
52
Lampiran 2. Cara kerja sediaan histopatologi
1) Menyiapkan wadah yang di isi dengan larutan formalin 10% buffer dengan
minimal lima kali volume jaringan
2) Testis yang telah diambil, segera dimasukkan ke dalam wadah tersebut
3) Memberi identitas pada semua wadah dengan identitas masing-masing
kelompok perlakuan
4) Dikirim ke Sentra Diagnostik Patologi Anatomi disertai dengan formulir
pengantar
5) Preparat kemudian dipotong dengan ketebalan maksimal 3-4 cm
6) Setelah dipotong diletakkan di dalam kaset jaringan, dan dimasukkan ke
wadah yang berisi formalin 10% buffer
7) Dilakukan proses pembuatan blok parafin, kemudian didinginkan di dalam
lemari es
8) Blok parafin dipotong menjadi lebih tipis menggunakan mikrotom sesuai
kebutuhan
9) Pita parafin dilebarkan dengan ditempelkan langsung pada kaca benda yang
telah dibasahi dengan air
10) Dimulai dengan proses pengecatan Hematoksilin dan Eosin (HE)
11) Perparat diberi cat Hematoksilin
12) Kemudian didiferensiasi dengan menggunakan air kran
13) Diberi cat Eosin
14) Kemudian di dehidrasi menggunakan alkohol 70%
15) Pada proses “clearing” menggunakan larutan xylol
16) Mouting adalah tahap terakhir yang kemudian dapat diamati di mikroskop
53
Lampiran 3. Ethical Clearance
54
Lampiran 4. Surat Keterangan Penelitian
55
Lampiran 5. Hasil Pengamatan Nekrosis Sel Hipokampus
Subjek
Jumlah Nekrosis (persen)
Kategori
Kontrol Negatif 1
6
1
Kontrol Negatif 2
17
1
Kontrol Negatif 3
11
1
Kontrol Negatif 4
26
2
Kontrol Negatif 5
9
1
Kontrol Positif 1
51
3
Kontrol Positif 2
52
3
Kontrol Positif 3
83
4
Kontrol Positif 4
59
3
Kontrol Positif 5
64
3
Perlakuan 1
32
2
Perlakuan 2
39
2
Perlakuan 3
12
1
Perlakuan 4
23
1
Perlakuan 5
21
1
56
Lampiran 6. Dokumentasi Penelitian
57