These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Complications of the Angelchik prosthesis in the management of gastroesophageal reflux. Kauten JR; Mansour KA Am Surg; 1986 Apr; 52(4):208-13. PubMed ID: 3954273 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Endoscopic management of intragastric migration of an Angelchik prosthesis. Cullingford GL; Coffey JF; Carr-Locke DL Aust N Z J Surg; 1990 Nov; 60(11):913-7. PubMed ID: 2241654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prospective study of the Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis. Wale RJ; Royston CM; Bennett JR; Buckton GK Br J Surg; 1985 Jul; 72(7):520-4. PubMed ID: 4016530 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Complications of the Angelchik antireflux prosthesis. A community experience. Smith RS; Chang FC; Hayes KA; deBakker J Am J Surg; 1985 Dec; 150(6):735-8. PubMed ID: 4073367 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Intractable dysphagia following placement of Angelchik prosthesis for reflux esophagitis. Battaglini JW; Schorlemmer GR; Frantz PT Ann Thorac Surg; 1983 May; 35(5):551-2. PubMed ID: 6847293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The Angelchik prosthesis for gastro-oesophageal reflux: symptomatic and objective assessment. Weaver RM; Temple JG Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 1985 Sep; 67(5):299-302. PubMed ID: 4051424 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis--some reservations. Durrans D; Armstrong CP; Taylor TV Br J Surg; 1985 Jul; 72(7):525-7. PubMed ID: 4016531 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Individualised surgical treatment of patients with an adenocarcinoma of the distal oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Hulscher JB; van Lanschot JJ Dig Surg; 2005; 22(3):130-4. PubMed ID: 15942237 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Surgical treatment of reflux esophagitis using Angelchik's ring prosthesis]. Proot L; Nemery J; Vandelanotte M Acta Chir Belg; 1984; 84(6):365-70. PubMed ID: 6524234 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reflux versus dysphagia: an objective evaluation of the Angelchik prosthesis. Morris DL; Jones J; Evans DF; Foster G; Smart H; Gregson R; Amar S; Doran J; Hardcastle JD Br J Surg; 1985 Dec; 72(12):1017-20. PubMed ID: 4084744 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for the management of failed Angelchik prosthesis. Jalil O; Zia MK; Hassn A; Morcous P J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2011; 21(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 21190477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Oesophageal erosion of an Angelchik prosthesis: surgical management using fundoplication. Purkiss SF; Argano VA; Kuo J; Lewis CT Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 1992; 6(9):517-8. PubMed ID: 1389267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Surgery for gastro-oesophageal reflux: the Angelchik prosthesis compared to the floppy Nissen fundoplication. Two-year follow-up study and a five-year evaluation of the Angelchik prosthesis. Deakin M; Mayer D; Temple JG Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 1989 Jul; 71(4):249-52. PubMed ID: 2774454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Atypical dysphagia with end-stage oesophageal disease 30 years post Angelchik device placement in a 72-year-old man. Arazi M; Vadasz B; Person B; Galili R; Lefkowitz J BMJ Case Rep; 2020 Jan; 13(1):. PubMed ID: 31919056 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Appraisal of the Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis based on clinical and manometric data and pH monitoring. de Caestecker JS; Ross HM; Heading RC; Macleod IB J R Coll Surg Edinb; 1989 Feb; 34(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 2709364 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]