Bakterien — ein zentraler Faktor in der Pathogenese der Nahtinsuffizienz nach Gastrektomie in der Ratte

Schardey, H. M.; Kamps, T.; Rau, H. G.; Gatermann, Sören; Baretton, Gustavo; Schildberg, F. W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-79044-7_2

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We tend to follow more recent studies [3], in which there is no correlation between these two parameters. This is also true for cancer in anastomotic margins [3,4], In 1976 Hermreck and Crawford [7] reported a corre lation between infection and anastomotic insufficiency, and experimental results underline these findings [8], Infection of the anastomotic site is often attributed to the draining tube. In the present study, however, suture-line disruption was more likely to occur in the non-drainage group.…”

Section: Drainagc O F Cervical Esophagogastrostomymentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Considerable efforts have been undertaken to determine the causes for anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection. Infection of the anastomosis is generally accepted to lead to anasto motic leakage together with other factors [7,8], The path way of infection elsewhere is explained by sewing a bacterially contaminated organ leading to microabscess forma tion within the suture-line (so-called 'endoluminal infec tion'). On the other hand, it is often debated but has never KARGER © 1997 S. Karger A G .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drainage of Cervical Esophagogastrostomy: Essential or Dangerous?

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leakage from a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis still accounts for major morbidity and mortality after subtotal esophageal resection. Its prevalence might adversely be affected by drainage of the anastomosis. Therefore we conducted a prospective randomized trial on 60 consecutive patients after subtotal esophagectomy and cervical esophagogastrostomy. The patients were assigned to either a drainage (n = 29) or a non-drainage group (n = 31). Suture-line disruption was more common in the non-drainage (n = 6) than in the drainage group (n = 3), and other complications were also more frequent in the non-drainage than in the drainage group. We did not note any adverse effects of drainage itself. Taking this small collective into account, we nevertheless recommend drainage for cervical esophagogastrostomy because it is simple, free of complications and seems to have no major impact on the incidence of anastomotic disruption.

show abstract

Section: Drainagc O F Cervical Esophagogastrostomymentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%