ライフサイエンスコーパス: splenic injury

1 thin 6 months of discharge after an isolated splenic injury.

2 bowel perforation, aspiration pneumonia, and splenic injury.

3 is known about its accuracy in children with splenic injury.

4 phy (US) for screening and grading pediatric splenic injury.

5 options for the management of patients with splenic injury.

6 red fifty-five patients were identified with splenic injury.

7 plenectomy during laparotomy after traumatic splenic injury.

8 plenectomy in patients with severe traumatic splenic injury.

9 tion pneumonia, but not bowel perforation or splenic injury.

10 , 27 grade III, 12 grade IV, and two grade V splenic injuries.

11 ive management employed in only 13% of blunt splenic injuries.

12 predict successful nonsurgical management of splenic injuries.

13 ght be indicated in selected cases of severe splenic injuries.

14 inal CT within 5 years, including 30 without splenic injury, 30 with parenchymal injury only, 30 with

15 hout hemoperitoneum included 57 (27%) of 210 splenic injuries, 71 (34%) of 206 hepatic injuries, 30 (

16 icipants included adult patients with severe splenic injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] grades

17 nsus interpretation was made to classify the splenic injuries according to the American Association f

18 Adult patients with isolated splenic injuries admitted from January 1 through June 30

19 As a result, 65% of all blunt splenic injuries and select stab wounds can be managed w

20 was used to identify patients with isolated splenic injuries and the procedures that they received.

21 Secondary outcomes were splenic injury and aspiration pneumonia.

22 vel of sensitivity (62% to 78%) in detecting splenic injury and downgrades the degree of injury in th

23 ageal cancer resection decreased the risk of splenic injury and incidental splenectomy (OR: 0.58; 95%

24 Predictors of splenic injury and incidental splenectomy were analyzed

25 For CT evaluation of blunt splenic injury, arterial phase is superior to portal ven

26 unt abdominal trauma who were diagnosed with splenic injury by computerized tomography (CT) scan pros

27 In blunt splenic injury, delayed-phase CT helps differentiate pat

28 Forty-seven patients with blunt splenic injury diagnosed at CT after blunt abdominal tra

29 erformed of the records of 270 patients with splenic injury during a 5-year period.

30 on in the management, outcome, and costs for splenic injury exists in the United States, and may refl

31 Twelve (38%) of the 32 splenic injuries found on CT were missed completely on t

32 valuation of the natural history of isolated splenic injuries from index admission through 6 months f

33 ents aged 15 years and older who sustained a splenic injury from blunt or penetrating trauma and who

34 Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries has replaced splenorrhaphy as the most

35 Options for managing splenic injuries have evolved with a focus on nonoperati

36 be inaccurate because not all patients with splenic injury have free intra-abdominal fluid.

37 Splenic injuries in adults over a 6-year period (January

38 The management of hepatic and splenic injuries in childhood has evolved over the past

39 To describe the natural history of isolated splenic injuries in the United States and determine whet

40 rent management strategies used for isolated splenic injuries in the United States are well matched t

41 hould be considered to optimize detection of splenic injuries in trauma with CT.

42 s study was to evaluate treatment trends for splenic injury in all North Carolina trauma centers over

43 to US-documented healing of blunt pediatric splenic injury is related to injury severity.

44 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.16) or splenic injury (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90].

45 In patients with splenic injury, progression to incidental splenectomy de

46 erican Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury scale.

47 erican Association for the Surgery of Trauma Splenic Injury Scale.

48 of therapy in 190 consecutive patients with splenic injuries seen during a subsequent 6-year period

49 verse association between surgeon volume and splenic injury supports centralization of esophageal can

50 5 of 78 patients) in predicting the need for splenic injury treatment.

51 s; 8179 men [72.7%]) with a severe traumatic splenic injury undergoing laparotomy were identified.

52 1 hemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury underwent multidetector CT at admission t

53 One hundred seventy one patients with splenic injury underwent multidetector CT.

54 ren and adolescents with CT-documented blunt splenic injury underwent US at approximate 6-week interv

55 Degree of splenic injury was evaluated by both CT and US.

56 uccessful observation in patients with blunt splenic injury was the CT-based grading system.

57 Splenic injuries were graded with the American Associati

58 % of all liver, 14.9% of kidney, and 3.5% of splenic injuries were successfully managed nonoperativel

59 04, and 2007, all patients hospitalized with splenic injury were identified from 19 participating sta

60 atively: 96 (65%) of 147 patients with blunt splenic injuries, which included 15 patients with intrin

61 Esophageal cancer surgery carries a risk of splenic injury, which may require splenectomy, but predi