ライフサイエンスコーパス: anastomotic leak

1 ntraabdominal abscess, or pancreaticojejunal anastomotic leak.

2 ection resulted from a choledochojejunostomy anastomotic leak.

3 tion had a decreased incidence of pancreatic anastomotic leak.

4 t and to correlate perfusion with subsequent anastomotic leak.

5 ot cigarette smoking) increased the risk for anastomotic leak.

6 s seemed to meet usual clinical criteria for anastomotic leak.

7 f the technique with the lowest incidence of anastomotic leak.

8 helps reduce risk of clinically significant anastomotic leak.

9 mportant implications in the pathogenesis of anastomotic leak.

10 n, and its use might affect the incidence of anastomotic leaks.

11 We registered 28 (5.6%) anastomotic leaks.

12 ode retrieval, and decrease the incidence of anastomotic leaks.

13 foration and in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks.

14 Oral contrast swallow detected 7 anastomotic leaks.

15 y for treating benign esophageal ruptures or anastomotic leaks.

16 the literature, we achieved a lower rate of anastomotic leak (0.3% vs. 2%, P = 0.001) and stomal ste

17 Complications: 4 major wound infections, 2 anastomotic leaks, 10 symptomatic marginal ulcers, 5 sto

18 Major complications were anastomotic leak (13%), atelectasis/pneumonia (2%), intr

19 vs. 52%); mean blood loss (677 vs. 368 mL); anastomotic leak (14% vs. 9%); and discharge within 10 d

20 (38%), pancreas graft thrombosis (27%), and anastomotic leak (15%).

21 Anastomotic leak (15.5% vs 21.2%, P = 0.028) and reinter

22 t differences in complications were seen for anastomotic leak (17.2% v 10.7%; P = .007) and surgical

23 ions (61, 9.9%), chest infection (50, 8.1%), anastomotic leak (27, 4.4%), hemorrhage (14, 2.3%), and

24 ous adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group

25 cluding mortality (2.9% vs 0.5%, P < 0.001), anastomotic leak (4.3% vs 1.4%, P = 0.002), and a higher

26 .5% (86.4% associated with perforation, 9.5% anastomotic leak, 4.5% patient managed nonoperatively).

27 ed as potential independent risk factors for anastomotic leak (60-day follow-up).

28 Grade 3 or higher adverse events included anastomotic leak (8.6%), acute respiratory distress synd

29 Anastomotic leak after anterior resection increased mort

30 ate, but multicentric prospective studies on anastomotic leak after colon resection are lacking.

31 Anastomotic leak after colon resection for cancer is a f

32 Anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery is a severe co

33 l entities may be considered to represent an anastomotic leak after low anterior resection, with diff

34 eotide decreases the incidence of pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malig

35 nt (SEPS) for a benign esophageal rupture or anastomotic leak after upper gastrointestinal surgery in

36 Anastomotic leaks after AR occurred in 5% (16 of 291) an

37 The risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) after anterior resection have been

38 CT) might be an early and reliable marker of anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal surgery.

39 ical factors that may predispose patients to anastomotic leak (AL) after large bowel surgery.

40 as to evaluate failure-to-rescue (FTR) after anastomotic leak (AL) in colectomy patients.

41 , and early postoperative mortality, whereas anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and recurrent l

42 ith LAA correlated with the likelihood of an anastomotic leak and confirmed the critical relationship

43 Two Immediate animals developed anastomotic leak and died; the Delay group had no compli

44 llows rapid diagnosis of acute rejection and anastomotic leak and provides a simple way to monitor os

45 There were no discernible anastomotic leaks and one late recurrent TEF related to

46 Endoscopic management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and perforations with the use of esoph

47 Anastomotic leaks and reinterventions were more frequent

48 tions after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass include anastomotic leaks and strictures, marginal ulcers, jejun

49 Recipient complications included three anastomotic leaks and three intra-abdominal abscesses.

50 ral antibiotics reduces by nearly half, SSI, anastomotic leak, and ileus, the most common and trouble

51 complication rate, rate of wound infection, anastomotic leak, and length of hospital stay were no di

52 urinary tract infection, urinary retention, anastomotic leak, and postoperative ileus.

53 eal perforation and postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak are often encountered.

54 Anastomotic leaks are a major source of morbidity after

55 Anastomotic leaks are among the most dreaded complicatio

56 Anastomotic leaks are frequently diagnosed late in the p

57 Benign esophageal ruptures and anastomotic leaks are life-threatening conditions that a

58 reactive protein (CRP) (P<0.05) but not with anastomotic leak/conduit necrosis or mortality.

59 am was created to easily predict the risk of anastomotic leak for a given patient.

60 ive perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains

61 198 study patients, 168 had no demonstrated anastomotic leak, free fluid, or abscess at any time aft

62 and perineal sepsis due to ileal pouch-anal anastomotic leaks frequently results in pouch loss.

63 diation developed a significant incidence of anastomotic leak (>60%; p<0.01) when colonized by P. aer

64 Anastomotic leak has a large overall effect on 30-day cl

65 any of 5 common complications (wound, chest, anastomotic leak, hemorrhage, and cardiac event).

66 incidence of respiratory failure, pneumonia, anastomotic leak, ileus, or urinary retention.

67 ly postoperative cholangiography revealed an anastomotic leak in 4.6% of patients and extravasation a

68 mpair wound healing and increase the risk of anastomotic leak in colon surgery.

69 e tissue destructive phenotype and prevented anastomotic leak in rats.

70 We developed a novel model of anastomotic leak in which rats were exposed to pre-opera

71 clinical trends in permanent stoma rates and anastomotic leaks in favor of LC but with an increased p

72 Only three patients had anastomotic leaks in the most recent 164 procedures (1.8

73 Abscess/anastomotic leak increased time to adjuvant chemotherapy

74 bosis, hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm formation, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal infections, and, al.

75 Anastomotic leak is a potentially devastating complicati

76 Anastomotic leak is still one of the most devastating co

77 Anastomotic leak is still the most dreaded complication

78 Complications included esophagogastric anastomotic leak (n = 15, 36%), which uniformly resolved

79 l stents (61 PSEMS, 15 FSEMS, 7 SEPS) for an anastomotic leak (n=32), iatrogenic rupture (n=13), Boer

80 re was no significant difference in rates of anastomotic leak, nonroutine discharges or readmission a

81 re was no significant difference in rates of anastomotic leak, nonroutine discharges or readmission a

82 variables were independent risk factors for anastomotic leak: obesity [P = 0.003, odds ratio (OR) =

83 Anastomotic leaks occurred in 4 of 56 HVI patients (7%)

84 ere associated with a 24% increased risk for anastomotic leak (odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56];

85 Patients who had an anastomotic leak or intra-abdominal abscess were include

86 There were no anastomotic leaks or deaths.

87 e bowel obstruction, wound complications, or anastomotic leaks or died.

88 ary outcomes when stenting was performed for anastomotic leaks or perforations.

89 No anastomotic leaks or strictures occurred in the patients

90 formation but does not increase the rate of anastomotic leaks or the length of hospital stay after l

91 t, was independently associated with reduced anastomotic leak (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35-0.94), SSI (OR

92 psis (OR = 2.18 [1.50-3.16], P < 0.001); and anastomotic leak (OR = 1.32 [1.02-1.71], P = 0.03).

93 medical complications (OR = 13.2, RR = 2.5), anastomotic leak (OR = 13.7, RR = 3.3), reoperations (OR

94 as no difference in conversion (P = 0.2835), anastomotic leak (P = 0.8342), or mortality (P = 0.5680)

95 mortality (15.2% vs 1.9% in patients without anastomotic leak, P < 0.0001) and length of hospitalizat

96 ere was no significant difference in risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, nasogastric tube reinsertio

97 ciated with a reduction in wound dehiscence, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, prolonged requirement of me

98 ses were performed to synthesize outcomes of anastomotic leaks, pneumonia, nasogastric tube reinserti

99 ial SSI, deep SSI, organ space SSI, any SSI, anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, sepsis, readmissi

100 It has been hypothesized that anastomotic leak predisposes rectal cancer patients to l

101 MBP+/ABX+ was also associated with lower anastomotic leak rate than no-prep [OR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0

102 Anastomotic leak rate was 11.7% (n = 26).

103 The short-term anastomotic leak rate was 8%.

104 The anastomotic leak rate was 8.7%, and widely varied betwee

105 agement has improved outcomes as measured by anastomotic leak rates and colon related mortality.

106 derwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy p

107 ts traditionally considered at high risk for anastomotic leak remains unclear.

108 ant chemoradiation is used, the incidence of anastomotic leaks remains unacceptably high ( approximat

109 tal are all important determining factors of anastomotic leak risk.

110 to the determine impact of severe esophageal anastomotic leak (SEAL) upon long-term survival and loco

111 n were pelvic abscesses (seven patients) and anastomotic leaks (seven patients).

112 Anastomotic leak significantly increased mortality (15.2

113 ic stents in the management of postoperative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous esophageal perforations,

114 Follow-up complications include anastomotic leak, staple-line disruption, stomal stenosi

115 paration (no-prep) on outcomes, particularly anastomotic leak, surgical site infection (SSI), and ile

116 Five patients (3.5%) had a documented anastomotic leak; three died).

117 ne required a prolonged hospital stay for an anastomotic leak; two (18%) temporarily suffered delayed

118 ormed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately.

119 The incidence of clinical anastomotic leak was 3.5%.

120 or permanent stoma creation, while only free anastomotic leak was associated with an increased incide

121 Anastomotic leak was associated with the incidence of en

122 Anastomotic leak was correlated with the requirement for

123 Anastomotic leak was defined as radiographic demonstrati

124 The rate of postoperative anastomotic leak was similar between groups.

125 Anastomotic leak was the most commonly reported morbidit

126 The overall 90-day rate of anastomotic leaks was 4.3% for all patients (151 patient

127 djuvant treatment, distance from anal verge, anastomotic leak) were collected.

128 -stage procedures did not change the risk of anastomotic leak when all operations were taken into acc

129 omy had an increased incidence of pancreatic anastomotic leak, whereas those who received preoperativ

130 resent early after esophageal perforation or anastomotic leak with limited mediastinal or pleural con

131 incisional hernia in 5 patients (1.8%), and anastomotic leak with peritonitis in 14 patients (5.1%).

132 Complications included anastomotic leaks with peritonitis and death, fatal pulm

133 for the treatment of esophageal ruptures and anastomotic leaks with special emphasis on different ste

134 , intraabdominal abscess, pancreaticojejunal anastomotic leak, wound infection, and postoperative dea