↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic Management of Benign Esophageal Ruptures and Leaks

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic Management of Benign Esophageal Ruptures and Leaks
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11938-017-0138-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milena Di Leo, Roberta Maselli, Elisa Chiara Ferrara, Laura Poliani, Sameer Al Awadhi, Alessandro Repici

Abstract

Esophageal leaks (EL) and ruptures (ER) are rare conditions associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity. Historically, EL and ER have been surgically treated, but current treatment options also include conservative management and endoscopy. Over the last decades, interventional endoscopy has evolved as an effective and less invasive alternative to primary surgery in these cases. A variety of techniques are currently available to re-establish the continuity of the digestive tract, prevent or treat infection related to the leak/rupture, prevent further contamination, drain potential collections, and provide nutritional support. Endoscopic options include clips, both through the scope (TTS) and over the scope (OTS), stent placement, vacuum therapy, tissue adhesive, and endoscopic suturing techniques. Theoretically, all of these can be used alone or with a multimodality approach. Endoscopic therapy should be combined with medical therapy but also with percutaneous drainage of collections, where present. There is robust evidence suggesting that this change of therapeutic paradigm in the form of endoscopic therapy is associated with improved outcome, better quality of life, and shortened length of hospital stay. Moreover, recent European guidelines on endoscopic management of iatrogenic perforation have strengthened and to some degree regulated and redefined the role of endoscopy in the management of conditions where there is a breach in the continuity of the GI wall. Certainly, due to the complexity of these conditions and the variety of available treatment options, a multidisciplinary approach is strongly recommended, with close clinical monitoring (by endoscopists, surgeons, and intensive care physicians) and special attention to signs of sepsis, which can lead to the need for urgent surgical management. This review article will critically discuss the literature regarding endoscopic modalities for esophageal leak and perforation management and attempt to place them in perspective for the physician.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Other 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 9 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Unknown 14 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,892,691
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#197
of 273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,746
of 309,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.