4.5 Article

Internal drainage of retropharyngeal abscess secondary to esophageal foreign bodies: a case series

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 279, 期 2, 页码 955-959

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06833-2

关键词

Cricopharynx; Extraluminal migration; Esophagus; Perforation; Dysphagia; Retropharyngeal abscess

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this retrospective study, 20 patients with foreign body esophagus were reviewed, with 5 of them having associated retropharyngeal abscess. Internal drainage of pus resulted in significant improvement in patients, who were discharged within a week.
Introduction and objectives Foreign body oesophagus is a commonly seen emergency in ENT. It is seen both in children and adults. When sharp bony foreign bodies such as chicken, fish, and mutton bone gets impacted in the oesophagus, it predisposes the patient to various complications. The foreign body can migrate extraluminally with time and cause retropharyngeal abscess. Materials and methods Retrospective study over a period of 6 months from November 2019 to April 2020 of patients with foreign body oesophagus. We came across 20 patients with oesophageal foreign bodies and five of them had associated retropharyngeal abscess. Rigid esophagoscopy with foreign body removal and internal drainage of pus through the oesophageal rent followed by conservative management with intravenous antibiotics based on culture and sensitivity was done. Results Patients improved drastically as the pus drained into the oesophagus via the rent in the posterior oesophageal wall and did not require an external incision and drainage. They were discharged in a week. Conclusion Removal of partial extraluminally migrated foreign body oesophagus and internal drainage of the abscess followed by nasogastric feeds till the rent resolves and intravenous pus culture-sensitive antibiotics fastens patient recovery and reduces the morbidity associated with external incision and drainage and oesophageal rent repair.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据