30. Oesophagusersatz bei langstreckigen Atresien durch frei transplantierte Dünndarmmucosa Oesophageal replacement in long gap atresia by free jejunal mucosa membrane tubes

1985 ◽  
Vol 366 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Halsband
Keyword(s):  
Jejunal Mucosa ◽  
Long Gap ◽  
Oesophageal Replacement

Long-gap oesophageal atresia: comparison of delayed primary anastomosis and oesophageal replacement with gastric tube

2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (12) ◽  
pp. 1762-1766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Qing Lee ◽  
Alisa Hawley ◽  
Joe Doak ◽  
Michael G. Nightingale ◽  
John M. Hutson
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Tube ◽  
Oesophageal Atresia ◽  
Primary Anastomosis ◽  
Long Gap ◽  
Oesophageal Replacement

scholarly journals Late life revision surgery for dilated colonic conduit in long gap oesophageal atresia

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (7) ◽  
pp. e185-e187 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Baggaley ◽  
T Reid ◽  
J Davidson ◽  
P de Coppi ◽  
A Botha
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Oesophageal Atresia ◽  
Late Life ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Colonic Interposition ◽  
Long Gap ◽  
Oesophageal Replacement ◽  
Colonic Conduit

Long gap oesophageal atresia presents a surgical challenge as there is insufficient length of the oesophagus to restore continuity. Oesophageal replacement is generally achieved using a conduit, taken from the stomach, jejunum or colon. Preferences of approach vary between and within surgical centres. Specific to colonic interposition, the continued growth and dilation of the interposed segment may lead to redundancy. Revision surgery in these cases is challenging and has been sparsely described in adult patients. We present two patients who had colonic interposition for long gap oesophageal atresia in infancy and who then underwent successful revision surgery in their fifth decade.

Role of thioiproteases on fasting-induced jejunal mucosa atrophy

1994 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
J. Asín ◽  
S. Schwartz ◽  
M. Quiles ◽  
M.A. Arbós ◽  
E. García ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Jejunal Mucosa

scholarly journals Is duodeno-jejunal bypass liner superior to pylorus preserving bariatric surgery in terms of complications and efficacy?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Istvan Bence Balint ◽  
Ferenc Csaszar ◽  
Krisztian Somodi ◽  
Laszlo Ternyik ◽  
Adrienn Biro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Jejunal Mucosa ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Weight Loss Outcomes ◽  
Jejunal Bypass

Abstract Purpose Based on recent scientific evidence, bariatric surgery is more effective in the management of morbid obesity and related comorbidities than conservative therapy. Pylorus preserving surgical procedures (PPBS) such as laparoscopic single-anastomosis duodeno-jejunal or duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are modified duodenal switch (DS) surgical techniques. The duodeno-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is a novel surgical method in the inventory of metabolism focused manual interventions that excludes duodeno-jejunal mucosa from digestion, mimicking DS procedures without the risk of surgical intervention. The aim of this article is to summarize and compare differences between safety-related features and weight loss outcomes of DJBL and PPBS. Methods A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database. Records of DJBL-related adverse events (AEs), occurrence of PPBS-related complications and reintervention rates were collected. Mean weight, mean body mass index (BMI), percent of excess of weight loss (EWL%), percent of total weight loss (TWL%) and BMI value alterations were recorded for weight loss outcomes. Results A total of 11 publications on DJBL and 6 publications on PPBS were included, involving 800 and 1462 patients, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the patients were matched. Comparison of DJBL-related AEs and PPBS-related severe complications showed an almost equal risk (risk difference (RD): −0.03 and confidence interval (CI): −0.27 to 0.21), despite higher rates among patients having received endoscopic treatment. Overall AE and complication rates classified by Clavien-Dindo showed that PPBS was superior to DJBL due to an excess risk level of 25% (RD: 0.25, CI: 0.01–0.49). Reintervention rates were more favourable in the PPBS group, without significant differences in risk (RD: −0.03, CI: −0.27 to 0.20). However, PPBS seemed more efficient regarding weight loss outcomes at 1-year follow-up according to raw data, while meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference (odds ratio (OR): 1.08, CI: 0.74–1.59 for BMI changes). Conclusion Only limited conclusions can be made based on our findings. PPBS was superior to DJBL with regard to safety outcomes (GRADE IIB), which failed to support the authors’ hypothesis. Surgical procedures showed lower complication rates than the incidence of DJBL-related AEs, although it should be emphasized that the low number of PPBS-related mild to moderate complications reported could be the result of incomplete data recording from the analysed publications. Weight loss outcomes favoured bariatric surgery (GRADE IIB). As the DJBL is implanted into the upper gastrointestinal tract for 6 to 12 months, it seems a promising additional method in the inventory of metabolic interventions.

scholarly journals 367 Combinational use of sodium butyrate and phytogenics on intestinal health of nursery pigs

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 132-133
Author(s):  
S Bloomer ◽  
Y C Cheng ◽  
H M Yakout ◽  
S W Kim
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Butyrate ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Protein Carbonyl ◽  
Jejunal Mucosa ◽  
Gut Health ◽  
Intestinal Health ◽  
Necrosis Factor Alpha ◽  
Nursery Pigs ◽  
Enterocyte Proliferation ◽  
Tnf Α

Abstract The effects of encapsulated sodium butyrate (SB), phytogenics (PH), or a combination were studied on intestinal health of nursery pigs. Phytogenics were blends of dry herbs and essential oil components. Forty-eight weaned pigs (21-d-old; 6.9 ± 0.6 kg BW) were individually housed, blocked by initial BW and sex, allotted to 4 dietary treatments (n = 12) in a RCBD, and fed for 33-d (P1: 0–7; P2: 7–19; and P3: 19–33). Treatments were arranged by 2 factors: SB (P1: 0.2% and P2: 0.1%) and PH (P3: 0.033%). Diets were formulated to meet or exceed NRC (2012) nutrient requirements and pigs were fed ad libitum. For each phase, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were measured. Fecal scores were assessed during d 3–19 and d 26–33. Blood samples were drawn in P2 and P3 to measure tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), IL-6, and immunoglobulin G (IgG). Four pigs at P2 and 8 pigs in P3 from each treatment were euthanized to collect jejunal tissue, jejunal mucosa, and ileal digesta to measure gut histology, TNF-α, IL-6, myeloperoxidase (MPO), malondialdehyde (MDA), and protein carbonyl. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS. Fixed effects were treatments and random effects were blocks. In P2 and P1-2, SB decreased (P < 0.05) ADFI whereas no effect on ADG and G:F. In P2, SB tended to decrease (P = 0.063) villus height to crypt depth ratio (VH:CD) whereas increased (P < 0.05) enterocyte proliferation in P3. In P3 and overall, PH increased (P < 0.05) G:F. No changes were found in TNF-α, IL-6, MPO, MDA, IgG, and protein carbonyl. Conclusively, SB and a combinational use of SB and PH showed minimal effects on growth performance and gut health when added to the diets of nursery pigs. However, PH supplementation increased feed efficiency of nursery pigs during 19–33 d post-weaning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document