Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 7, 2017; 23(9): 1637-1644
Published online Mar 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i9.1637
Table 3 Detailed data of the mucosal penetrations from all 21 patients
NumberShapeLocationEstimated size (cm/cm2)Postoperative treatmentPostoperative stay (d)Amount of consumed fibrin sealant (mL)Postoperative complaint
1Hole likeGOC0.4 × 0.4NG tube75Slight abdominal pain
2Hole likeGOC0.4 × 0.5NG tube72.5Normal
3Hole likeGOC0.3 × 0.2Fasting72.5Normal
4LinearEOC0.3Fasting72.5Normal
5Hole likeEOC0.4 × 0.3Fasting72.5Normal
6LinearEOC0.3Fasting62.5Normal
7LinearEOC0.1Fasting62.5Normal
8LinearGOC0.4Fasting62.5Normal
9LinearGOC0.4Fasting62.5Normal
10Hole likeEOC0.3 × 0.2Fasting52.5Normal
11LinearEOC0.2Fasting52.5Normal
12Hole likeEOC0.2 × 0.2Fasting52.5Normal
13LinearBOC1.0Fasting55Normal
14Hole likeEOC0.8 × 0.4Fasting52.5 (one hemostatic clip)Normal
15LinearEOC0.3Fasting52.5Normal
16Hole likeGOC0.5 × 0.5Fasting52.5Normal
17Hole likeEOC0.4 × 0.4Fasting52.5Normal
18Hole likeGOC0.3 × 0.3Fasting52.5Normal
19Hole likeEOC0.4 × 0.4Fasting52.5Normal
20LinearGOC0.3Fasting52.5Normal
21Hole likeEOC0.1 × 0.2Fasting52.5Normal