ライフサイエンスコーパス: pancreatic resection

1 andidates to IAT (accounting for 7.5% of all pancreatic resections).

2 rapy on the surgical complication rate after pancreatic resection.

3 re--from 1.24 for lung resection to 3.61 for pancreatic resection.

4 rgical procedures included esophagectomy and pancreatic resection.

5 eal drains has been considered routine after pancreatic resection.

6 ntraperitoneal closed suction drainage after pancreatic resection.

7 ot be considered mandatory or standard after pancreatic resection.

8 inage placed in a standardized fashion after pancreatic resection.

9 native somatostatin) in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

10 associated with successful pain relief after pancreatic resection.

11 Center identified 332 patients who underwent pancreatic resection.

12 e first 3 postoperative days after a partial pancreatic resection.

13 nd risk factors for 30-day readmission after pancreatic resection.

14 I and total costs and charges for hepatic or pancreatic resection.

15 Hepatic or pancreatic resection.

16 ent of POPF nearly doubled the total cost of pancreatic resection.

17 ity of widespread pasireotide application in pancreatic resection.

18 that can rapidly degrade cells and RNA upon pancreatic resection.

19 r to complications and death associated with pancreatic resection.

20 substantial saving in operative time during pancreatic resection.

21 green (ICG) (2.5-5 mg/kg) 24 hours prior to pancreatic resection.

22 stoperative morbidity in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

23 independent risk factor for mortality after pancreatic resection.

24 en hundred and thirty-six patients underwent pancreatic resection.

25 h modern imaging to avoid unsuccessful blind pancreatic resection.

26 sessing margins and extent of disease during pancreatic resections.

27 tologous substitute during complex liver and pancreatic resections.

28 our knowledge the largest series of robotic pancreatic resections.

29 niotomy, 77 for esophageal resection, 86 for pancreatic resection, 138 for pediatric heart surgery, 1

30 e hospitals ranged from over 12 percent (for pancreatic resection, 16.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent) to o

31 ), repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (8%), pancreatic resection (2%), esophageal resection (1%), an

32 d at 2 hospitals with HV for either liver or pancreatic resection (2009-2012).

33 trectomy 23.4%; antireflux procedures 23.4%; pancreatic resection 37.4%; liver resection 29.3%; endoc

34 ansfusion (of 13657 patients who underwent a pancreatic resection, 4074 required transfusion [29.8%];

35 an abdominal aortic aneurysm, 55 percent for pancreatic resection, 49 percent for coronary-artery byp

36 nal volume was associated with lower cost of pancreatic resection (-5.4%; 95% CI, -10.0% to -0.5%; P

37 Weighted totals of 38711 patients undergoing pancreatic resection (50.8% men and 49.2% women; median

38 ng 33,866 patients, the majority underwent a pancreatic resection (58.5%; n = 19,827), were male (88.

39 Colon resection (37.7% of hospitals), pancreatic resection (7.1% of hospitals), and laparoscop

40 e surgical and clinicopathologic outcomes of pancreatic resections after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX thera

41 tomatic, it becomes important in cases where pancreatic resection/anastomosis is planned, because of

42 The history of prior pancreatic resection and drainage procedures may be used

43 as predictors of subsequent performance for pancreatic resection and elective abdominal aortic aneur

44 reduction in the morbidity and mortality of pancreatic resection and improvement in the actuarial 5-

45 f pancreatic carcinoma with a combination of pancreatic resection and intraoperative radiation therap

46 ing the terms 'autoimmune pancreatitis' and 'pancreatic resection' and supplemented by manual checks

47 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant ge

48 carotid endarterectomy, radical cystectomy, pancreatic resection, and esophagectomy.

49 denectomy, 11 patients underwent non-Whipple pancreatic resections, and 5 underwent simple enucleatio

50 nderwent colorectal resection; 1660 (40.4%), pancreatic resection; and 694 (16.9%), hepatic resection

51 actors determining short-term survival after pancreatic resection are well studied, but prognostic fa

52 An increasing number of pancreatic resections are being performed using minimall

53 eft pancreatectomy and those undergoing left pancreatic resection as part of a multivisceral resectio

54 trospective review of patients who underwent pancreatic resection at a single institution between Jan

55 s with non-neoplastic diseases who underwent pancreatic resection at Johns Hopkins Hospital between 2

56 eased mortality in older patients undergoing pancreatic resection at specialized centers.

57 th pathologically proven IPMN who received a pancreatic resection at the institution between October

58 review of a prospective database of robotic pancreatic resections at a single institution between Au

59 an comprehensive cancer center who underwent pancreatic resection between October 2016 and April 2022

60 IPMNs represent an increasing indication for pancreatic resection, but little is known about the actu

61 singly recognized complication after partial pancreatic resections, but its incidence and clinical im

62 olling for patient demographics and factors, pancreatic resection by a HV surgeon in this case-contro

63 ients with abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, pancreatic resection, colectomy, and appendectomy.

64 For pancreatic resections, costs were 5.5% higher (95% CI, 0

65 Routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection could be safely abandoned.

66 r extremity vascular bypass, lung resection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy.

67 A single institution's prospective pancreatic resection database was retrospectively review

68 The pancreatic resection databases of 3 institutions (design

69 In addition to the traditional methods of pancreatic resection (eg, standard Whipple and pylorus-p

70 r in high-volume hospitals for 3 procedures (pancreatic resection, esophagectomy, cystectomy), but lo

71 Patients undergoing pancreatic resection for A-IPMN were identified retrospe

72 currence in a large cohort of patients after pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma arising from int

73 Recurrence after pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma arising from IPM

74 Patients undergoing pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma from IPMN betwee

75 All patients undergoing pancreatic resection for an IPMN at the Johns Hopkins Ho

76 All patients who underwent pancreatic resection for an IPMN at the Johns Hopkins Ho

77 the National Cancer Data Base who underwent pancreatic resection for cancer were linked (2006-2009).

78 idence of AIP in patients who have undergone pancreatic resection for clinical manifestation of cance

79 o identify risk factors for recurrence after pancreatic resection for intraductal papillary mucinous

80 e 13-year time period, 60 patients underwent pancreatic resection for IPMNs, with 40 patients undergo

81 for 21 consecutive MEN 1 patients undergoing pancreatic resection for NETs between 1993 and 1999 at o

82 om 89 consecutive patients who had undergone pancreatic resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with

83 The survival benefit of extended pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer remains dubio

84 rding routine imaging in the follow-up after pancreatic resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinom

85 luding consecutive patients after left-sided pancreatic resection for pathology-proven RPC, either af

86 ional study, routine follow-up imaging after pancreatic resection for PDAC was independently associat

87 Overall, 2282 patients after left-sided pancreatic resection for RPC were included of whom 290 p

88 sed on prospectively collected data from 555 pancreatic resections for adenocarcinoma at a single ins

89 Improved management of pancreatic resections for cancer with more extensive and

90 was performed using all patients undergoing pancreatic resections for neoplastic disease identified

91 re oncologic outcomes after open and robotic pancreatic resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA

92 Extensive pancreatic resections for SAP became the vogue in contin

93 We identified 2694 patients who underwent pancreatic resection from the American College of Surgeo

94 Three of 5 HRIs who underwent pancreatic resection had high-grade dysplasia in less th

95 ents who receive octreotide during and after pancreatic resection have a reduction in the total numbe

96 ive bypass, relieve pain, and perform distal pancreatic resections have been described.

97 %, distal pancreatectomy in 12%, and central pancreatic resection in 2%.

98 lvement should not be a contraindication for pancreatic resection in patients with adenocarcinoma.

99 included all patients undergoing hepatic or pancreatic resection in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

100 We identified all pancreatic resections in Texas from 1999 to 2005.

101 Pancreatic resections, including pancreaticoduodenectomy

102 Readmission after pancreatic resection is common and can largely be attrib

103 Hospital readmission after pancreatic resection is common and costly.

104 Pancreatic resection is considered to be a curative trea

105 Pancreatic resection is the standard treatment option fo

106 ng all patients and subsets of patients with pancreatic resection, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, cole

107 (N = 55,466) who underwent colon resection, pancreatic resection, laparoscopic gastric bypass, ventr

108 More extensive pancreatic resections lead to higher morbidity.

109 Venous resection during liver or pancreatic resection may require a rapidly available sub

110 Of 767 pancreatic resections meeting our eligibility criteria,

111 188 patients were surveyed, the majority had pancreatic resections (n = 90, 47.9%), 59 (31.4%) patien

112 Gastrointestinal dysfunction after pancreatic resection occurs frequently yet only a small

113 Patients who underwent pancreatic resection of MCNs at the 8 academic centers o

114 tcomes than their counterparts who underwent pancreatic resection only.

115 ncreatic gastrinomas underwent either distal pancreatic resections or gastrinoma enucleation with lym

116 e resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with cura

117 tions in nonneoplastic ducts supports formal pancreatic resection over enucleation for treatment.

118 ients with pancreatic cancer who underwent a pancreatic resection, palliative bypass, or stent proced

119 We retrospectively assessed all pancreatic resections performed between 2004 and 2015 at

120 s with LAPC underwent IRE alone (n = 150) or pancreatic resection plus IRE for margin enhancement (n

121 Improved outcomes after pancreatic resection (PR) by high volume (HV) surgeons h

122 al procedure volume as a quality measure for pancreatic resection (PR), abdominal aortic aneurysm (AA

123 bserved in highest volume quintiles for each pancreatic resection procedure, with 6.2% for DP, 8.3% f

124 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pancreatic resection remains among the most formidable a

125 asectomy is most often done through a formal pancreatic resection such as pancreaticoduodenectomy or

126 The use of the robotic platform for complex pancreatic resections, such as the pancreaticoduodenecto

127 ential gastrointestinal (GI) side effects of pancreatic resection that can cause patients to suffer f

128 g the 42 480 patients who underwent liver or pancreatic resection, the median age was 62 years, 52.4%

129 tive tool that reduces the number of aborted pancreatic resections; there is no evidence from this re

130 recently shown to decrease leak rates after pancreatic resection, though the significant cost of the

131 mination of PD specimens has shown that most pancreatic resections thought to be R0 resections are R1

132 veral studies have concluded that additional pancreatic resection to achieve an R0 margin in IONM-pos

133 icoduodenectomy is not improved by extending pancreatic resections to achieve negative margins after

134 We applied this technology to a variety of pancreatic resections to assess the safety, feasibility,

135 to compare pasireotide administration after pancreatic resection versus usual care, populated by pro

136 elative risk (RR) of in-hospital death after pancreatic resection was 19.3 and 8 at the low- and medi

137 patients who underwent potentially curative pancreatic resection was analyzed.

138 he use of intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection was published from our institution

139 Patients scheduled to undergo pancreatic resection were consented for randomization to

140 tion, major perioperative complications from pancreatic resection were not significantly influenced b

141 A total of 250 consecutive robotic pancreatic resections were analyzed; pancreaticoduodenec

142 Major pancreatic resections were associated with mortality ran

143 8917 pancreatic resections were performed because of a clinic

144 January 1987 and March 2003, inclusive, 136 pancreatic resections were performed for patients with I

145 tervention before malignant spread and major pancreatic resection where indicated, appears justified.

146 Pancreatic resection with autologous islet transplantati

147 need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis

148 eatic cancer patients undergoing any type of pancreatic resection with PVR at the University of Color

149 involvement of the portal vein and underwent pancreatic resection with PVR.

150 Patients who underwent pancreatic resection with VR were at a higher risk for i

151 Extended pancreatic resections with vascular resection appear saf

152 A total of 545 patients underwent pancreatic resection; within the cohort 451 patients (83

153 lly different from those patients undergoing pancreatic resection without PVR (17 months (range, < 1-

154 Patients undergoing curative pancreatic resection without PVR over this same time per

155 Whereas low-volume (L-V) hospitals (< or =10 pancreatic resections/y) had higher mortality rates (3.2

156 resected at high-volume (H-V) hospitals (>10 pancreatic resections/y).