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 Concept Videos

Esophageal Perforation-I: Introduction01:22

Esophageal Perforation-I: Introduction

622
Esophageal perforation is a severe medical condition characterized by a breach in the integrity of the esophageal wall. This breach can occur due to various factors such as trauma, medical procedures, or underlying diseases. When the esophageal wall is compromised, it allows food, fluids, and digestive juices into the chest cavity or adjacent structures, leading to potential complications and health risks.
The location of esophageal perforation can vary, occurring anywhere along the esophagus....
622
Electric Potential and Potential Difference01:16

Electric Potential and Potential Difference

5.8K
Suppose a positive test charge moves away from a positive static charge, then the Coulomb force does positive work, and its electric potential energy decreases. The potential energy per unit charge is defined as the electric potential. The electric potential is independent of the test charge.
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
5.8K
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

8.4K
The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
8.4K
Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test01:14

Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test

3.9K
The F-test is used to compare two sample variances to each other or compare the sample variance to the population variance. It is used to decide whether an indeterminate error can explain the difference in their values. The underlying assumptions that allow the use of the F-test include the data set or sets are normally distributed, and the data sets are independent of each other. The test statistic F is calculated by dividing one variance by another. In other words, the square of one standard...
3.9K
Sum and Difference OpAmps01:22

Sum and Difference OpAmps

1.4K
Operational amplifiers (op-amps) are versatile devices that extend beyond amplification. In this context, two specific op-amp configurations are explored: the summing and difference amplifiers.
A summing amplifier, or an adder, utilizes an op-amp to merge multiple input signals into a single output signal. When audio signals are introduced into its input channels, the input resistors initiate currents that traverse feedback resistors, resulting in an output voltage. Applying Kirchhoff's current...
1.4K
Esophageal Perforation-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management01:28

Esophageal Perforation-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management

747
Esophageal perforations manifest in various clinical forms, influenced by factors such as the perforation's cause and location (cervical, intrathoracic, or intra-abdominal), the extent of contamination, and potential injury to adjacent mediastinal structures. The timing between the perforation occurrence and treatment initiation also affects the clinical presentation.
Clinical Manifestations:
747

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

A modified Delphi consensus on fusion (laparoscopic and robotic) approaches to colorectal surgery in Asia-Pacific.

Journal of gastroenterology·2026
Same author

Embracing minimally invasive approaches to colorectal cancer resection.

Singapore medical journal·2025
Same author

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection: comparative short-term outcomes in a propensity score matched cohort.

Journal of robotic surgery·2025
Same author

Prognostic role of tertiary lymphatic structures and their modulation by adjuvant FOLFOX in stage III colon cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Journal of gastrointestinal oncology·2025
Same author

Robotic Masterclass: Instrument Control During Total Mesorectal Excision.

Diseases of the colon and rectum·2025
Same author

Regorafenib monotherapy as the later-line treatment for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter real-world study.

Journal of gastrointestinal oncology·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Endovascular Perforation Model for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Combined with Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI
06:30

Endovascular Perforation Model for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Combined with Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI

Published on: December 16, 2021

4.5K

Perforated diverticulitis: is the right and left difference present here too?

Nicholas Yock Teck Soh1, Nan Zun Teo2, Carrie Jen Hsi Tan1

  • 1National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore.

International Journal of Colorectal Disease
|March 14, 2018
PubMed
Summary

Location of disease significantly impacts perforated diverticulitis outcomes. Left perforated diverticulitis (LPD) is more severe and recurrent than right perforated diverticulitis (RPD), which is often misdiagnosed as appendicitis.

Keywords:
Acute diverticulitisHincheyLPDPerforated diverticulitisRPD

More Related Videos

Orthotopic Left Lung Transplantation in Rats
08:22

Orthotopic Left Lung Transplantation in Rats

Published on: July 3, 2025

759
Assessing Differences in Sperm Competitive Ability in Drosophila
09:34

Assessing Differences in Sperm Competitive Ability in Drosophila

Published on: August 22, 2013

15.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Endovascular Perforation Model for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Combined with Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI
06:30

Endovascular Perforation Model for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Combined with Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI

Published on: December 16, 2021

4.5K
Orthotopic Left Lung Transplantation in Rats
08:22

Orthotopic Left Lung Transplantation in Rats

Published on: July 3, 2025

759
Assessing Differences in Sperm Competitive Ability in Drosophila
09:34

Assessing Differences in Sperm Competitive Ability in Drosophila

Published on: August 22, 2013

15.1K

Area of Science:

  • Gastroenterology
  • Surgical Gastroenterology
  • Colorectal Surgery

Background:

  • Current management guidelines for perforated diverticulitis do not differentiate based on disease location.
  • The clinical presentation and outcomes of right perforated diverticulitis (RPD) versus left perforated diverticulitis (LPD) remain unclear.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare disease presentation and management outcomes between RPD and LPD.
  • To evaluate the impact of disease location on treatment success and recurrence rates.

Main Methods:

  • A 10-year retrospective comparative cohort study of 99 patients with acute perforated diverticulitis.
  • Patients were categorized into RPD and LPD groups based on the location of the disease.
  • Disease severity was assessed using the modified Hinchey classification, and outcomes included treatment failure, length of stay, mortality, complications, and recurrence.

Main Results:

  • RPD patients were younger and presented with lower modified Hinchey stages compared to LPD patients.
  • Conservative management success rates were similar for both groups (96.1% vs. 96.5%).
  • RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (4.6 vs. 6.3 days) and significantly less disease recurrence (3.1% vs. 17.9%).
  • A notable 20.4% of RPD patients with early-stage disease were misdiagnosed as appendicitis, leading to unnecessary surgery.

Conclusions:

  • Left perforated diverticulitis (LPD) presents as a more aggressive condition, particularly in older individuals, and shows a higher recurrence rate with conservative treatment.
  • Right perforated diverticulitis (RPD) is often misdiagnosed as appendicitis, potentially resulting in unwarranted surgical intervention.
  • Disease location is a critical factor influencing the clinical course and management of perforated diverticulitis.