2018
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2017.0184030817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Report of a rare case and review of adult intestinal duplication at the opposite side of mesenteric margin

Abstract: CONTEXT: To study the previously discovered clinical entity of adult intestinal duplication and its treatment, and propose an extension to its existing classification. CASE REPORT: We report the case of an adult male with abdominal pain, constipation and vomiting. This patient underwent surgical separation of adhesions, reduction of torsion and intestinal decompression. Postoperative pathological findings confirmed the rare diagnosis of intestinal duplication. CONCLUSION: Adult intestinal duplication is quite … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We retrieved the literature on adult intussusception caused by intestinal duplication from PubMed, and the publications are listed in Table 2 . The differences between intestinal duplication and Meckel’s diverticulum are as follows: (1) Intestinal duplication shares a blood supply with the surrounding intestine, while diverticulum has an independent blood supply; and (2) well-developed smooth muscle is present in intestinal duplication but not in Meckel’s diverticulum[ 19 ]. Studies suggest that there is a direct communication hole between intestinal duplication and the normal intestinal wall for unknown reasons[ 20 , 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We retrieved the literature on adult intussusception caused by intestinal duplication from PubMed, and the publications are listed in Table 2 . The differences between intestinal duplication and Meckel’s diverticulum are as follows: (1) Intestinal duplication shares a blood supply with the surrounding intestine, while diverticulum has an independent blood supply; and (2) well-developed smooth muscle is present in intestinal duplication but not in Meckel’s diverticulum[ 19 ]. Studies suggest that there is a direct communication hole between intestinal duplication and the normal intestinal wall for unknown reasons[ 20 , 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several surgical techniques have been previously described in the literature for the treatment of rectal duplications, including parasacral, transanal, perianal and abdominal approaches 18–28. The size and location of the lesion, along with surgeon’s experience should be considered when choosing the operative technique, for there is no consensus about the best surgical approach 9 29–31. The parasacral approach may be appropriate for small lesions located posteriorly to the rectum; its major disadvantages are the risk of intraoperative pelvic haemorrhage and injury to the lateral pelvic nerves 19 29.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A search on PubMed for the period 1950–2021 using "enteric duplication", "volvulus" and "torsion" as search words revealed four cases of volvulus of the enteric duplication itself. Table 2 shows the five total cases of volvulus of the enteric volvulus itself, including our present case [ 7 10 ]. The patient age ranged from 1 to 53 years old.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our case seems to be a pattern (Type1c) in which the duplication is located on one side of the mesentery as described by long li et al Blood perfusion of the conjoined segment was supplied from thin pedicle of the mesentery and those of the residual two-thirds segment was supplied from intramural blood flow. Hung et al also suggested broad variations in the current anatomical classification [ 10 ]. Understanding the different potential forms of enteric duplication can help diagnose enteric duplication based on clinical symptoms and imaging findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%