Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

[Esophageal prosthesis].

H Bermúdez Ruiz1, M G Rodríguez Varela

  • 1Departamento de Endoscopia del Hospital de Oncología del Centro Médico Nacional IMSS, México, D.F.

Revista De Gastroenterologia De Mexico
|July 1, 1990
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

[Esophageal prosthesis].

Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico·1999
Same author

[Percutaneous cholangioscopy. An alternative in the treatment of retained stones].

Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico·1990
Same author

[Incipient gastric carcinoma].

Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico·1988
Same author

[Percutaneous cholangioscopy in the removal of residual calculi].

Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico·1987
Same author

[Cancer in the gastric stump].

Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico·1986

Esophageal carcinoma has a poor prognosis, with 5-year survival rates under 15%. While esophageal prostheses can improve quality of life, they do not alter patient survival outcomes.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Surgical Innovation

Background:

  • Esophageal carcinoma presents a significant clinical challenge with a dismal prognosis.
  • Current 5-year survival rates for esophageal cancer remain below 15%, irrespective of histological subtype.
  • Esophageal prostheses offer palliative benefits but do not impact overall survival.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present clinical experience with esophageal prostheses in managing esophageal carcinoma.
  • To emphasize the critical techniques for optimal prosthesis placement and patient management.
  • To discuss the role of prostheses in improving quality of life for patients with esophageal cancer.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective review of patient cases undergoing esophageal prosthesis placement.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of procedural techniques and patient outcomes.
  • Evaluation of quality of life metrics pre- and post-intervention.

    • Main Results:

    • Esophageal prosthesis placement was associated with improved quality of life for patients.
    • No significant improvement in 5-year survival rates was observed following prosthesis implantation.
    • Key technical aspects influencing procedural success were identified.

    Conclusions:

    • Esophageal prostheses provide a valuable option for enhancing the quality of life in patients with esophageal carcinoma.
    • Correct technique is paramount for successful prosthesis placement and maximizing palliative benefits.
    • Prognosis for esophageal carcinoma remains poor, underscoring the need for further therapeutic advancements.