Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases

We present two similar cases of massive small bowel infarction in which two different surgical approaches were employed, illustrating the advantages of the staged approach of damage control surgery. This comprises an initial operation, limited to bowel resection and temporary closure of the bowel en...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haddow, James B, Arshad, Ilyas, Redfern, Andrew, Agarwal, Pradeep K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elmer Press 2009
Materias:
Case Report
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27942281
http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/gr2009.07.1302
_version_ 1782472299290558464
author Haddow, James B
Arshad, Ilyas
Redfern, Andrew
Agarwal, Pradeep K
author_facet Haddow, James B
Arshad, Ilyas
Redfern, Andrew
Agarwal, Pradeep K
author_sort Haddow, James B
collection PubMed
description We present two similar cases of massive small bowel infarction in which two different surgical approaches were employed, illustrating the advantages of the staged approach of damage control surgery. This comprises an initial operation, limited to bowel resection and temporary closure of the bowel ends, and a second performed after 48 to 72 hours where the bowel continuity is re-established. We strongly advocate such an approach as it appears to offer a quicker recovery with fewer complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5139748
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Elmer Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51397482016-12-09 Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases Haddow, James B Arshad, Ilyas Redfern, Andrew Agarwal, Pradeep K Gastroenterology Res Case Report We present two similar cases of massive small bowel infarction in which two different surgical approaches were employed, illustrating the advantages of the staged approach of damage control surgery. This comprises an initial operation, limited to bowel resection and temporary closure of the bowel ends, and a second performed after 48 to 72 hours where the bowel continuity is re-established. We strongly advocate such an approach as it appears to offer a quicker recovery with fewer complications. Elmer Press 2009-08 2009-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5139748/ /pubmed/27942281 http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/gr2009.07.1302 Text en Copyright 2009, Haddow et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Case Report
Haddow, James B
Arshad, Ilyas
Redfern, Andrew
Agarwal, Pradeep K
Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases
title Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases
title_full Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases
title_fullStr Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases
title_full_unstemmed Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases
title_short Massive Small Bowel Infaction: A Comparison of Two Cases
title_sort massive small bowel infaction: a comparison of two cases
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27942281
http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/gr2009.07.1302
work_keys_str_mv AT haddowjamesb massivesmallbowelinfactionacomparisonoftwocases
AT arshadilyas massivesmallbowelinfactionacomparisonoftwocases
AT redfernandrew massivesmallbowelinfactionacomparisonoftwocases
AT agarwalpradeepk massivesmallbowelinfactionacomparisonoftwocases

Ejemplares similares