戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 lay position when constructing permanent end colostomy.
2 compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy.
3 ve therapy and rationalized use of permanent colostomy.
4 wound infection, and no closure of ileostomy/colostomy.
5 ry anastomosis vs sigmoid colectomy with end colostomy.
6 ents of more than 6 units/blood received end colostomy.
7  anesthesia, surgery, and complications of a colostomy.
8 tes and unacceptable variations in permanent colostomies.
9                               Fifteen have a colostomy; 19 had pull-through of the colon, but 3 were
10 scence (odds ratio, 16.9; 95% CI, 1.94-387), colostomy (5.07; 2.12-13.0), thicker subcutaneous fat (2
11 control, 38 use enemas to evacuate, 9 have a colostomy, 7 have fecal soiling, and 5 are too recently
12 ce and for anorectal reconstruction to avoid colostomy after abdominoperineal resection.
13  The stent group had significantly fewer end colostomies and more minimally invasive surgeries (p<0.0
14 (loss of anorectal function with a permanent colostomy and a high incidence of sexual and genitourina
15 tment of fecal incontinence has evolved from colostomy and direct repair of muscle defects to interve
16 patient measures, such as rates of permanent colostomy and in-hospital mortality, and to improve surv
17 egression analysis, initial surgery with end-colostomy and symptomatic pain (both univariate) and inc
18 ostomy, cecostomy, sphincter reconstruction, colostomy, and artificial sphincters.
19 lity, overall long-term mortality, permanent colostomy, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
20 ascial dehiscence, thicker subcutaneous fat, colostomy, and white race.
21 are alive, 61% are disease-free, and 50% are colostomy- and disease-free.
22 riables that would predict the likelihood of colostomy are unknown.
23 ite of tumour, and presence of defunctioning colostomy as stratification variables.
24 N 2A-HD had rectal biopsies with a diverting colostomy as the initial surgical procedure.
25 difference in patients who avoided permanent colostomy at 3 years between treatment groups.
26  are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag).
27 y resulted in a significantly higher rate of colostomy compared with mitomycin-based therapy.
28 r implanted as a one-stage procedure without colostomy cover.
29 rouracil (FU) plus mitomycin (MMC) decreased colostomy failure (CF) when compared with induction plus
30 nificant association between RX duration and colostomy failure (CF; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.51; 95% CI,
31            Based on this wartime experience, colostomy for civilian colon wounds became the standard
32       Institution of this pathway results in colostomy for only 7% of all colon wounds.
33 ics to vedolizumab, and arrange a transverse colostomy for stool diversion.
34 ions of intestinal stomas are the following; colostomy formation should rarely be done in transverse
35 dence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a rand
36 domized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation.
37  in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS), colostomy-free survival (CFS), and overall survival (OS)
38 re concomitant RCT lead to an improvement in colostomy-free survival (CFS).
39 rm impact of treatment on survival (DFS, OS, colostomy-free survival [CFS]), CF, and relapse (locoreg
40 stomy rates were lower (9% v 22%; P = .002), colostomy-free survival higher (71% v 59%; P = .014), an
41 tch and wait had significantly better 3-year colostomy-free survival than did those who had surgical
42                               Eighteen-month colostomy-free survival, overall survival, freedom from
43 condary endpoints were overall survival, and colostomy-free survival.
44 atistically significant predictors of OS and colostomy-free survival.
45 rvival, two used local failure, and one used colostomy-free survival.
46 servation was as follows: disease-free, 77%; colostomy-free, 100%; and overall, 85%.
47                        The RRs for requiring colostomy/ileostomy, liver biopsy, or developing cirrhos
48           The data demonstrated the need for colostomy in the face of shock and comorbidities.
49 ght polypropylene mesh was placed around the colostomy in the sublay position.
50 cancer, immunosuppressive therapy, ileostomy/colostomy, incomplete questionnaires, or lack of consent
51 ed Sugarbaker technique when a permanent end-colostomy is needed.
52  vary across these modalities, and permanent colostomy is often indicated when they fail.
53 iculitis to reduce the risk of recurrence or colostomy, no prior studies have quantified this risk wh
54 ulation and anal dextranomer injection, with colostomy or anal sphincteroplasty now rarely required.
55 ceived anticancer therapy or surgery (except colostomy or ileostomy) 28 days or less before the first
56  2.36-5.70), less likely to have a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.53; 95%CI, 0.30-0.93), and less likely
57 ore left hemicolectomies and procedures with colostomies (p=0.000), were older (p=0.002), and lost mo
58 gnificantly associated with a higher rate of colostomy (P = .03) than was mitomycin-based therapy.
59 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35; P = .92), permanent colostomy rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.70-1.32; P = .81), 3
60 ve a detrimental effect on local failure and colostomy rate in anal cancer.
61 atment variable that predicts TTC and 5-year colostomy rate in patients with anal carcinoma.
62 acil/cisplatin and radiotherapy had a higher colostomy rate than patients treated with concurrent 5-f
63             Similarly, the cumulative 5-year colostomy rate was statistically significantly higher fo
64 mpare resection margin positivity, permanent colostomy rate, 30-day readmission, 90-day mortality, an
65 ed therapy resulted in a significantly worse colostomy rate.
66                                  At 4 years, colostomy rates were lower (9% v 22%; P = .002), colosto
67                  For rectal cancer, adjusted colostomy rates were significantly higher for low-volume
68 lume to postoperative and overall mortality, colostomy rates, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
69 er after elective resection, and considering colostomies related to resection, ostomy prevention shou
70                       This was followed by a colostomy takedown and pull-through procedure at a later
71 val (OS), disease-free survival, and time to colostomy (TTC) with pretreatment and treatment variable
72                                    Permanent colostomy was considered successful in 86% of refractory
73 tween surgeon procedure volume and permanent colostomy was diminished.
74 clear whether this difference in the rate of colostomy was due to the chemotherapy agents, the use of
75                       The cumulative rate of colostomy was significantly better for mitomycin-based t
76 ic abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy were randomized (1 : 1) to the mesh and nonmes
77 rgery, including creation of a permanent end colostomy, were randomized into 2 groups, with and witho
78                  Surgical decompression with colostomy with or without resection and eventual re-anas
79  avoided major surgery and averted permanent colostomy without loss of oncological safety at 3 years.