Intussusception and its relation to rectal prolapse—A 19th century account

Nathan, Bassem

doi:10.1007/bf02150756

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of this variation could be due to a lack of standardised definition prior to 2015. Many series report incidence of gastric tube ischemia less than 1%[16,17]. Davis et al[16] report 0.5% gastric tube ischemia in series of 959 esophagectomies.…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Davis et al[16] showed that gastric conduit reconstruction has less rate of anastomotic leak and conduit ischemia in compare with colon reconstruction. Moorehead et al[17], in their review of 760 esophagectomy patients in whom the stomach, colon, or jejunum was used for chest or neck reconstruction, showed that gastric conduit had the lowest rate of ischemia (1%), followed by small bowel (11%), while colon had the highest rate (13.3%). Moreover, Briel et al[19] compared colon and gastric conduit after two or three stage esophagectomy and they reported 10% colon conduit ischemia and 7% gastric conduit ischemia.…”

Section: Management Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review

Athanasiou

Hennessy

Spartalis

et al. 2019

WJGS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esophageal conduit ischaemia and necrosis is an uncommon but devastating complication of esophagectomy and remains one of the most challenging issues in surgical practice. The incidence, time interval to develop symptoms, and clinical presentation are highly variable with no predictable pattern. Evidence comes from case reports and case series rather than randomized controlled trials. We describe the issues surrounding conduit necrosis affecting the stomach, jejunum and colon as an esophageal replacement and the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of each type of reconstruction. Diagnosis is challenging for the most experienced surgeon. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and computed tomography thorax with both oral and intravenous contrast is the gold standard. Management, either conservative or interventional is also a difficult decision. Management options include conservative treatment and more aggressive treatments such as stent insertion, surgical debridement and repair of the esophagus using jejunum, colon or a musculocutaneous flap. In spite of recent advances in surgical techniques, there is no reliable strategy to manage esophageal conduit necrosis. Our review covers the pathophysiology and clinical significance of esophageal necrosis while highlighting current techniques of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of this life-threatening condition.

show abstract

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Management Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review

Athanasiou

Hennessy

Spartalis

et al. 2019

WJGS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esophageal cancer (ESCA) is a highly invasive and lethal disease that accounts for more than 400,000 deaths/year worldwide (1,2), with the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate being less than 30% (3). The status of lymph node metastasis, one of the cornerstones for pathological staging, is the key prognostic factor for survival outcome of ESCA (4,5). A two-field or three-field lymphadenectomy has been widely accepted during esophagectomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Range of Lymphadenectomy in Pathological Stage T1 and T2 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Zhuang

Huang

et al. 2021

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLymph node metastasis is a primary contributor to tumor progression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the appropriate number of lymph nodes to be dissected in pT1-2Nany stage ESCC to achieve the best prognosis and avoid missing positive lymph nodes (PLNs).MethodsA total of 497 patients with pT1 to pT2 esophageal cancer from two institutions were retrospectively analyzed and their surgical and pathological records were critically reviewed. Stepwise analyses were conducted by calculating a serial of hazard ratios and odd ratios to determine the optimal range of lymphadenectomy for overall survival (OS).ResultsThe best survival outcome can be obtained when the number of lymph node examined (NLNE) is 10–18 in pT1N0 ESCC, while the NLNE should exceed 24 in pT2N0 diseases. In patients with pT1-2Nany and pT2Nany ESCC, resection of 15–25 and 24–37 lymph nodes, respectively, could provide significant added value for identifying positive nodal metastasis. When the NLNE exceeds this appropriate range, resection of extra lymph node is not helpful to improve the probability of finding PLNs.ConclusionsFor ESCC patients undergoing radical esophagectomy, the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy is 15–25 for pT1Nany disease and 24–37 for pT2Nany disease.

show abstract

Intussusception and its relation to rectal prolapse—A 19th century account

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review

Conduit necrosis following esophagectomy: An up-to-date literature review

Optimal Range of Lymphadenectomy in Pathological Stage T1 and T2 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About