ライフサイエンスコーパス: bile duct injury

1 e phenotypes, and proliferate in response to bile duct injury.

2 -17A production and ameliorated intrahepatic bile duct injury.

3 tivity, potentially allowing for exaggerated bile duct injury.

4 have been linked to pathogenic mechanisms of bile duct injury.

5 gen(s) responsible for T-cell activation and bile duct injury.

6 ced, subsequent autoreactive T cell-mediated bile duct injury.

7 ntigen-specific animal model of inflammatory bile duct injury.

8 e might be able to decrease the incidence of bile duct injury.

9 the normal biliary proliferative response to bile duct injury.

10 ,411 for all care related to repair of their bile duct injury.

11 ures with a recognized morbidity relating to bile duct injuries.

12 of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)-related bile duct injuries.

13 my was associated with a lower risk of major bile duct injury [0.28% vs 0.53%, relative risk (RR)=0.5

14 orrhage, 0.3%; subhepatic collections, 2.9%; bile duct injury, 0.08%; and retained stones, 3.1%); the

15 gnant biliary obstruction (1.8%), history of bile duct injury (2.2%), or complications of liver trans

16 The authors analyzed 252 laparoscopic bile duct injuries according to the principles of the co

17 s treated at a single institution with major bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy ma

18 of laparoscopic techniques, the frequency of bile duct injury after operation has increased.

19 Major bile duct injuries and postoperative bile duct stricture

20 PTC and PTBD performed for management of bile duct injury and complications of liver transplantat

21 ency of serious rare complications including bile duct injury and death.

22 Outcomes of bile duct injuries are best with surgical management and

23 Bile duct injury as a background histologic finding shou

24 rimental BA, CD25+ cell depletion aggravated bile duct injury at 12 dpi after RRV inoculation, as pla

25 A majority of bile duct injuries (BDI) sustained during laparoscopic c

26 has led to a rise in the incidence of major bile duct injuries (BDI).

27 holecystectomy, operative complications (eg, bile duct injury, bleeding), and mortality.

28 his analysis were to compare the outcomes of bile duct injuries by specialist over time and the role

29 Major bile duct injuries can be managed successfully by combin

30 Almost all bile leaks and many bile duct injuries can be managed successfully by endosc

31 Repair of cholecystectomy-related bile duct injuries can run 4.5 to 26.0 times the cost of

32 February 1, 2000, and November 23, 2011 for bile duct injury, cholangiocarcinoma, choledochal cysts,

33 With the exception of bile duct injuries discovered and repaired during surger

34 e incidence and mechanism of injury of major bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy h

35 iologic management of 89 patients with major bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

36 There seems to be an increase in the rate of bile duct injuries during SILC when compared with histor

37 Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy is a serious com

38 imary endpoint was the occurrence of a major bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (bi

39 lso be critical in the early phases of small bile duct injury found in primary biliary cirrhosis.

40 valuating QOL after surgical repair of major bile duct injuries from LC.

41 after successful surgical repair of a major bile duct injury from a LC treated at the Johns Hopkins

42 Biliary complications consisted of five bile duct injuries (group A = 4, group B = 1) and two cu

43 The incidence of bile duct injuries has increased dramatically since the

44 Bile duct injuries have been reported in several series

45 ly indicated in the management of iatrogenic bile duct injuries (IBDI), but occasionally, it becomes

46 Thirty percent of bile duct injuries in group A and 32.9% of all injuries

47 ategies to block progression of intrahepatic bile duct injury in patients with BA.

48 ed in vivo in multiple models of hepatic and bile duct injury, including bile duct ligation and CCl(4

49 ry epithelium associated with p53 mutations, bile duct injury, inflammation, and fibrosis.

50 murine biliary atresia, and the progressive bile duct injury is due in part to a bile duct epithelia

51 pathogenesis of biliary atresia (BA) is that bile duct injury is initiated by a virus infection, foll

52 RF-induced bile duct injury may be decreased significantly with an

53 intermittent toxin exposure, which provokes bile duct injury/necrosis and proliferation, fibroblast

54 It has been suggested that the majority of bile duct injuries occur as a result of operator disorie

55 Hepatocellular, but not bile duct, injury occurs during experimental pancreatiti

56 ted at the Johns Hopkins Hospital with major bile duct injuries or postoperative bile duct strictures

57 nfidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.90], of major bile duct injury or death (1.36% vs 1.88%, RR=0.72, 95%

58 No bile duct injury or death occurred.

59 Secondary outcomes included major bile duct injury or death, 30-day postcholecystectomy mo

60 Overall QOL scores for bile duct injury patients in the three domains (physical

61 Thirty-one percent of responding bile duct injury patients reported having sought legal r

62 as evaluated from a psychological dimension, bile duct injury patients reported QOL scores in the phy

63 Thus, p53 deficiency, chronic bile duct injury/proliferation, and the fibrotic matrix

64 lecystectomy appears to have a higher common bile duct injury rate and a lower mortality rate.

65 juries were identified for a SILC-associated bile duct injury rate of 0.72%.

66 Except for a higher common bile duct injury rate, laparoscopic cholecystectomy appe

67 s sufficient data to determine mortality and bile duct injury rates.

68 postoperative bile duct strictures and major bile duct injuries remains a challenge for even the most

69 Postoperative bile duct injuries require multidisciplinary management.

70 Sixty-four percent of all major bile duct injuries required biliary reconstruction, and

71 The primary outcome was major bile duct injury requiring operative repair within 6 mon

72 ey bias underestimates the true frequency of bile duct injuries, residency training decreases the lik

73 Bile duct injury seems to be a multistep process.

74 ata show that errors leading to laparoscopic bile duct injuries stem principally from misperception,

75 o determine the optimal timing for repair of bile duct injuries sustained during cholecystectomy.

76 Patients with bile duct injuries that were recognized immediately at t

77 The bile duct injury that occurs in patients with BA might r

78 sults concerning complications, particularly bile duct injury, to those reported in open cholecystect

79 having bile leaks (type A, n = 239, 45%) or bile duct injuries (types B-E, n = 289, 55%).

80 spective analysis of 200 patients with major bile duct injuries was completed.

81 Common bile duct injury was defined by a second surgical proced

82 Common bile duct injury was found in 2380 (0.39%) of 613 706 pa

83 Patients with LC-related bile duct injuries were billed a mean of $51,411 for all

84 ent for laparoscopic cholecystectomy-related bile duct injuries were divided into 8 categories.

85 Nineteen bile duct injuries were identified for a SILC-associated

86 Patients with bile duct injuries were managed most often by endoscopis

87 Bile duct injuries were more likely to be discovered dur

88 cholecystectomy (bile leaks without a major bile duct injury were not tabulated).