Reconstrução esofágica pela esofagocoloplastia no megaesôfago avançado em pacientes gastrectomizados

Aquino, José Luis Braga de; Said, Marcelo Manzano; Maziero, Diana; Oliveira, Jean Marc Prado de; Leandro‐Merhi, Vânia Aparecida

doi:10.1590/s0102-67202009000400003

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Good results were obtained with this procedure in patients undergoing reoperation for achalasia (15 cases of a non advanced form and five in an advanced form by Ponciano et al. 16 in 2004.In the early 90s Aquino et al 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , following preliminary studies in dogs and later in cadavers to verify its feasibility began to perform a new therapeutic modality for advanced megaesophagus: esophageal mucosectomy. It is a method which withdraw the mucosa and submucosa of the esophagus, through its complete invagination through via cervico-abdominal combined without thoracotomy and conserving the entire muscular layer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus

Oliveira

Rocha

Coelho-Neto

et al. 2015

ABCD, arq. bras. cir. dig.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe surgical treatment of advanced megaesophagus has no consensus, being esophagectomy the more commonly used method. Since it has high morbimortality - inconvenient for benign disease -, in recent years an alternative has been introduced: the esophageal mucosal resection.AimTo compare early and late results of the two techniques evaluating the operative time, length of ICU stay; postoperative hospitalization; total hospitalization; intra- and postoperative complication rates; mortality; and long-term results. MethodsWere evaluated retrospectively 40 charts, 23 esophagectomies and 17 mucosectomies. In assessing postoperative results, interviews were conducted by using a specific questionnaire.ResultsComparing the means of esophagectomy and mucosal resection, respectively, the data were: 1) surgical time - 310.2 min and 279.7 min (p> 0.05); 2) length of stay in ICU - 5 days and 2.53 days (p <0.05); 3) total time of hospitalization - 24.25 days and 20.76 days (p> 0.05); 4) length of hospital stay after surgery - 19.05 days and 14.94 days (p> 0.05); 5) presence of intraoperative complications - 65% and 18% (p <0.05); 6) the presence of postoperative complications - 65% and 35% (p> 0.05). In the assessment of late postoperative score (range 0-10) esophagectomy (n = 5) obtained 8.8 points and 8.8 points also got mucosal resection (n = 5).ConclusionsEsophageal mucosal resection proved to be good alternative for surgical treatment of megaesophagus. It was advantageous in the immediate postoperative period by presenting a lower average time in operation, the total hospitalization, ICU staying and complications rate. In the late postoperative period, the result was excellent and good in both operations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus

Oliveira

Rocha

Coelho-Neto

et al. 2015

ABCD, arq. bras. cir. dig.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many studies to define the location and angles of guide wires suitable for construction of tunnels for the ACL transtibial technique of dual-band 8,10,11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical study of the positioning of guide wires for the reconstruction of the two bands of the anterior cruciate ligament using transtibial technique

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE: To determine whether it is possible and the difficulty of anatomical placement of guide wires for reconstruction of the two bands of the anterior cruciate ligament using transtibial technique and to measure the angle and positioning of the anatomic tibial guide wires for this technique. METHODS: Ten cadaver knees were dissected and a guide wire was positioned in the center of origin and insertion of each band. Were collected measurements of the distance from: 1) the entry point of the guide wire on tibial tuberosity; 2) the medial end of the tibia; 3) the tibial articular surface. Were also measured the medial and caudal angles of the guide wires. RESULTS: For the anteromedial band the medial angle was 19±5º and the caudal was 44±4º.The distances were 20±2 mm from anterior tuberosity, 26±5 mm from the tibial plateau and 25±5 mm from the medial end of the tibia. For the posterolateral band the medial angle was 26±5º and the caudal one was 36±8°. The distances were 31±6 mm for the anterior tuberosity, 24±4 mm for the tibial plateau and 17±7 mm from the end of the tibia. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to position the guide wires of the two bands to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament using transtibial technique. The parameters for the proper positioning of the guide wire from anteromedial band is caudal angle of 44º with entry point 20 mm from anterior tuberosity; for the posterolateral band the caudal angle is 36º; from the tibial tuberosity the distance is 31 mm. This technique is difficult to perform leaving its questionable reproducibility.

show abstract

Reconstrução esofágica pela esofagocoloplastia no megaesôfago avançado em pacientes gastrectomizados

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus

Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus

Anatomical study of the positioning of guide wires for the reconstruction of the two bands of the anterior cruciate ligament using transtibial technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About