| Title |
Nutritional management in an elderly man with esophageal and gastric necrosis after caustic soda ingestion: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s92870 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariangela Rondanelli, Gabriella Peroni, Alessandra Miccono, Fabio Guerriero, Davide Guido, Simone Perna |
| Abstract |
The ingestion of corrosive industrial chemical agents, such as caustic soda, that are mostly used for household cleaning, usually occurs accidentally or for suicidal purposes. Multiple protocols are based on documented success in preventing impending complications. In this study, we present a case of a 70-year-old man who swallowed caustic soda in a suicide attempt, causing a development of strong esophageal and gastric necrosis with subsequent gastrectomy and digiunostomy. Initially, the recommended nutritional approach was via percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy by a polymer and high-caloric formula, with an elevated content of soluble fiber. After 5 months, the medical team removed the percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and the patient switched from enteral to oral nutrition. In this step, it was decided to introduce two oral, high-caloric supplements: an energy supplement in powder, based on maltodextrin, immediately soluble in foods or in hot/cold drinks and a high-energy and protein drink, enriched with arginine, vitamin C, zinc, and antioxidants. Oral administration (per os) was well tolerated by consuming homogenized food mixed in water. After 1 month, the patient was discharged from the hospital and was able to eat a regular meal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#752
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,229
of 406,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#23
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 406,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.