2017
DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.272
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study of Arterial Supply of Caecum and Appendix: A Cadaveric Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this present study, the incidence of double appendicular arteries supplying the appendix was about 13%. The same has been observed by Nirmaladevi as 10% (21) and Toriola as 9% (20) but not by Ashwini Balasaheb, which has been found as 40% (22). The accessory appendicular artery was seen to originate in contrast from the main branch, predominantly from posterior caecal artery than the ileocolic artery in our study as in concordance with Ajmani et.al (23), though we differ in that, there were no accessory arteries arising from anterior caecal artery.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In this present study, the incidence of double appendicular arteries supplying the appendix was about 13%. The same has been observed by Nirmaladevi as 10% (21) and Toriola as 9% (20) but not by Ashwini Balasaheb, which has been found as 40% (22). The accessory appendicular artery was seen to originate in contrast from the main branch, predominantly from posterior caecal artery than the ileocolic artery in our study as in concordance with Ajmani et.al (23), though we differ in that, there were no accessory arteries arising from anterior caecal artery.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…10,11 Nuchhi et al also made note of the common cecal artery within their anatomical investigation concerning the arterial supply to the cecum and appendix. 26 Lastly, a remarkable situation occurred where the AAA had a direct origin from the ileocolic branch in 0.2% of cases, making it the most atypical point of origin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%