1986
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.1986.01400010138021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

'Noninvasive' Treatment of Esophagogastric Anastomotic Leakage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other studies as mentioned in the chart below have a similar pattern of distribution. There was a exception in the case of the study conducted by William E. Fisher et al 2011 where the ratio was 79 :21% respectively [13][14][15] .…”
Section: Discussion Demographic Featuresmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Other studies as mentioned in the chart below have a similar pattern of distribution. There was a exception in the case of the study conducted by William E. Fisher et al 2011 where the ratio was 79 :21% respectively [13][14][15] .…”
Section: Discussion Demographic Featuresmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In recent years, some authors have proposed transesophageal endoscopic drainage in treating mediastinitis 5,15 . We suggest that surgical drainage would be much more appropriate than transesophageal endoscopic drainage because the mediastinal contamination of patients with foreign body ingestion is more serious than those with perforations from other etiologies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In recent years, some authors have proposed transesophageal endoscopic drainage in treating mediastinitis. 5,15 We suggest that surgical drainage would be much more appropriate than transesophageal endoscopic drainage because the mediastinal contamination of patients with foreign body ingestion is more serious than those with perforations from other etiologies. For example, 4 patients who underwent esophageal internal drainage initially had to change to anterolateral cervical-superior mediastinal drainage later because of a poor drainage effect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%