• No results found

The prevalence of gastric heterotopia of the proximal esophagus is underestimated, but preneoplasia is rare - correlation with Barrett’s esophagus

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "The prevalence of gastric heterotopia of the proximal esophagus is underestimated, but preneoplasia is rare - correlation with Barrett’s esophagus"

Copied!
8
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

Loading

Figure

Fig. 2 Endoscopic view of a small inlet patch (solid arrow), estimated0.3 cm in diameter, surrounded by subsquamous glands (yellowspots), including a cyst (open arrow)
Fig. 3 Scatter diagram of length of inlet patch (IP) in relation tolength of columnar epithelium lined lower esophagus (CLE)
Fig. 6 Histological view of a biopsy from a 2.5 cm inlet patch with acombination of mucoid cardia-type and corpus-type glands andsuperficial focal intestinal metaplasia

References

Related documents

Videre vil det være av betydning at foreldrene blir hørt og får medvirke i samarbeidet, dette kan ha stor betydning for at de også skal kunne oppleve at samarbeidet fungerer. Det

no change in the amount or content of the information carried in individual chromosomes in the germ line. Instead, the phenotypic changes and any changes in

Prasad & Singh (2009) 1 analyzed the living condition and life style of Mankhurd slum dwellers and found that slum dwellers living in this area face a variety of

There is also little recommendation on the assessment of confounder adjustment strategies and how to take the potential bias introduced by different ad- justment strategies

The majority of papers reported roles performed by general health care assistants or rehabilitation assistants who work in multiple settings or are not specifically affiliated to

While the microstructure of the concrete-steel interface and the surface finish of the steel are widely recognized to influence the corrosion initiation, no systematic

The positive cases were 3 with history of carcinoma in the opposite breast, 3 who complained of breast lumpiness and 1 with breast

By contrast, in Panel B, where the measure of firm size is the arithmetic average, that coefficient is not significant in most specifications (though positive when