ライフサイエンスコーパス: hiatal

1 r studies are needed to define the nature of hiatal and crural diaphragm dysfunction in patients with

2 trolled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of hiatal closure for large hiatal hernia and to evaluate t

3 nsional (3D) pressure profile of the LES and hiatal contraction between healthy subjects and patients

4 sure) and at the peak of forced inspiration (hiatal contraction).

5 n seven United States centers, patients with hiatal hernia </= 2 cm and abnormal esophageal acid expo

6 ophageal pH study (body mass index <35 kg/m, hiatal hernia <3 cm, and absence of endoscopic Barrett d

7 of dysphagia (3.7% vs. 3.3%), postoperative hiatal hernia (1.9% vs. 1.4%), need for esophageal dilat

8 tes (23.5% vs 11.4% vs 10.1%, P = 0.001) and hiatal hernia (28.3% vs 14.8% vs 20.3%, P = 0.01) for ob

9 e findings showed wrap breakdown (42%), wrap-hiatal hernia (30%), or both (21%).

10 hypertriglyceridemia (OR 1.42 [1.29-1.57]), hiatal hernia (HH) (OR 4.07 [3.21-5.17]), and non-alcoho

11 Hiatal hernia (HH) is considered a risk factor of atrial

12 review addresses the historical evolution of hiatal hernia (HH) repair and reports in a chronological

13 0-74 years (HR = 2.8, 95% CI: 2.2, 3.6), and hiatal hernia (HR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.7), while Black

14 UGI and over a median of 99 months a sliding hiatal hernia (SHH) developed in 16 and a PEH developed

15 utcome was radiologically verified recurrent hiatal hernia after more than 10 years.

16 Length of BE and size of hiatal hernia also were associated with persistent intes

17 ta were obtained, including age, gender, and hiatal hernia and Helicobacter pylori status.

18 paring 2 methods of hiatal closure for large hiatal hernia and to evaluate their strengths and flaws.

19 of prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia cannot be endorsed routinely and the decis

20 gnoses in the 38 cases were gastritis in 19, hiatal hernia in four, benign ulcer in three, benign (n

21 This study aimed to determine if hiatal hernia influences vulnerability to reflux and tra

22 th protrusion of the right hemidiaphragm and hiatal hernia is an uncommon anomaly among all transposi

23 they had documented GERD and did not have a hiatal hernia larger than 2 cm, LES pressure less than 8

24 g an increase in size or change in type of a hiatal hernia may be clinically relevant to help underst

25 Twenty-one people had no hiatal hernia on initial UGI and over a median of 99 mon

26 logic gastroesophageal reflux and those with hiatal hernia or disordered esophageal peristalsis, alth

27 as undertaken for a patulous hiatus or large hiatal hernia or to buttress the repair of an esophagoto

28 for both groups which included recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.92, 4

29 operating time, complications, recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration, and reoperation.

30 g that the perturbed anatomy associated with hiatal hernia predisposed to eliciting tLESRs in patient

31 rbable mesh does not reduce the incidence of hiatal hernia recurrence 13 years postoperatively.

32 r solid foods after 3 years without reducing hiatal hernia recurrence rates compared with crural sutu

33 The verified radiologic hiatal hernia recurrence rates were 11 of 29 (38%) in th

34 they were more likely to undergo concurrent hiatal hernia repair (35.1% vs 20.0%, p < 0.0001).

35 Hiatal hernia repair can be performed safely with a low

36 afluoroethylene mesh closure in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair for treatment of GERD.

37 se (GERD), but the durability of concomitant hiatal hernia repair remains challenging.

38 practice for benign foregut procedures (eg, hiatal hernia repair, fundoplication, and Heller myotomy

39 with eventration of right hemidiaphragm and hiatal hernia reported from Pakistan providing insights

40 On ordinal logistic regression, hiatal hernia size and Milan Score category were indepen

41 orectal surgery (colectomy, proctectomy), or hiatal hernia surgery (paraesophageal hernia repair, Nis

42 Hiatal hernia surgery has evolved from anatomic repair t

43 idity between HSHs and LSHs for bariatric or hiatal hernia surgery.

44 LES pressures and a decreased prevalence of hiatal hernia than non-diabetics, which may be related t

45 All hiatal hernia types (I-IV) were collected.

46 /- 5.2 vs. 27.7 +/- 3.7 kg/m(2); p < 0.001), hiatal hernia was less frequent in T2D patients compared

47 er uric acid, smoking, alcohol drinking, and hiatal hernia were found to be significant associated fa

48 us prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia were selected by searching PubMed, Medline

49 including band slippage, pouch dilation, and hiatal hernia were studied.

50 ric pneumatosis secondary to an incarcerated hiatal hernia with resultant portal venous gas involving

51 re likely to have EGJ disruption (leading to hiatal hernia) and an augmented GEPG providing a perfect

52 position to GERD (eg, central obesity, large hiatal hernia).

53 sence of endoscopic erosive esophagitis, and hiatal hernia).

54 r in Barrett esophagus include chronic GERD, hiatal hernia, advanced age, male sex, white race, cigar

55 U tests revealed that length of BE, size of hiatal hernia, and frequency of reflux, but not acid ref

56 nal risk factors (nocturnal reflux symptoms, hiatal hernia, elevated body mass index, tobacco use, an

57 th either Stretta or LF according to size of hiatal hernia, LES pressure, Barrett's esophagus, and si

58 therapy or surgery according to the size of hiatal hernia, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, Barr

59 or incidence of recurrent reflux, dysphagia, hiatal hernia, need for esophageal dilation, revision of

60 ases of band erosion, port/tube dysfunction, hiatal hernia, wound infection, and pouch dilation.

61 ients with a body mass index <35 kg/m and no hiatal hernia.

62 ate the development and natural history of a hiatal hernia.

63 s were pulmonary artery-aorta dilatation and hiatal hernia.

64 e program to identify individuals that had a hiatal hernia.

65 Patients with GERD and hiatal hernias </=2 cm were randomly assigned to groups

66 In the LF group, 41% had large hiatal hernias (>2 cm), 8 patients required Collis gastr

67 Many patients with hiatal hernias (HH) are asymptomatic; however, symptoms

68 ntrast phase optimizes the ability to detect hiatal hernias and lower esophageal rings or strictures.

69 ho underwent recumbent imaging, 10 (77%) had hiatal hernias and nine (69%) had reflux.

70 Hiatal hernias are common but the natural history of sli

71 copic antireflux surgery and repair of small hiatal hernias are now routinely performed.

72 t lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and hiatal hernias have emerged as major and interacting fac

73 Recurrent hiatal hernias were detected in 17 of 79 patients studie

74 phragmatic crura were closed only when large hiatal hernias were present.

75 ssociated with technical shortcomings, large hiatal hernias, and early postoperative vomiting.

76 Patients with larger hiatal hernias, LES pressure less than 8 mmHg, or Barret

77 ods for elective surgical treatment of large hiatal hernias.

78 duces comparable results for repair of large hiatal hernias.

79 ant PEH accounts for approximately 5% of all hiatal hernias.

80 ting, other diaphragm "stressors," and large hiatal hernias.

81 ncter relaxations and their association with hiatal hernias; (3) the role of Helicobacter pylori in G

82 limitations, we believe that the prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy and suture cruroplasty produces com

83 Presently, the use of prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia cannot be e

84 mparing suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia were select

85 ), the pooled effect size favored prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy over suture cruroplasty.

86 ng filamentous cyanobacteria, alternate with hiatal intervals.

87 During prolonged hiatal periods, climax communities develop, which includ