ライフサイエンスコーパス: colostomy

1 ve therapy and rationalized use of permanent colostomy.

2 wound infection, and no closure of ileostomy/colostomy.

3 compared with the traditional formation of a colostomy.

4 ents of more than 6 units/blood received end colostomy.

5 anesthesia, surgery, and complications of a colostomy.

6 tes and unacceptable variations in permanent colostomies.

7 Fifteen have a colostomy; 19 had pull-through of the colon, but 3 were

8 scence (odds ratio, 16.9; 95% CI, 1.94-387), colostomy (5.07; 2.12-13.0), thicker subcutaneous fat (2

9 control, 38 use enemas to evacuate, 9 have a colostomy, 7 have fecal soiling, and 5 are too recently

10 ce and for anorectal reconstruction to avoid colostomy after abdominoperineal resection.

11 (loss of anorectal function with a permanent colostomy and a high incidence of sexual and genitourina

12 tment of fecal incontinence has evolved from colostomy and direct repair of muscle defects to interve

13 egression analysis, initial surgery with end-colostomy and symptomatic pain (both univariate) and inc

14 ostomy, cecostomy, sphincter reconstruction, colostomy, and artificial sphincters.

15 lity, overall long-term mortality, permanent colostomy, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.

16 ascial dehiscence, thicker subcutaneous fat, colostomy, and white race.

17 are alive, 61% are disease-free, and 50% are colostomy- and disease-free.

18 riables that would predict the likelihood of colostomy are unknown.

19 ite of tumour, and presence of defunctioning colostomy as stratification variables.

20 N 2A-HD had rectal biopsies with a diverting colostomy as the initial surgical procedure.

21 difference in patients who avoided permanent colostomy at 3 years between treatment groups.

22 are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag).

23 y resulted in a significantly higher rate of colostomy compared with mitomycin-based therapy.

24 r implanted as a one-stage procedure without colostomy cover.

25 rouracil (FU) plus mitomycin (MMC) decreased colostomy failure (CF) when compared with induction plus

26 nificant association between RX duration and colostomy failure (CF; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.51; 95% CI,

27 Based on this wartime experience, colostomy for civilian colon wounds became the standard

28 Institution of this pathway results in colostomy for only 7% of all colon wounds.

29 dence of parastomal hernias (PSHs) after end-colostomy formation using a polypropylene mesh in a rand

30 domized controlled trial versus conventional colostomy formation.

31 re concomitant RCT lead to an improvement in colostomy-free survival (CFS).

32 rm impact of treatment on survival (DFS, OS, colostomy-free survival [CFS]), CF, and relapse (locoreg

33 stomy rates were lower (9% v 22%; P = .002), colostomy-free survival higher (71% v 59%; P = .014), an

34 tch and wait had significantly better 3-year colostomy-free survival than did those who had surgical

35 Eighteen-month colostomy-free survival, overall survival, freedom from

36 rvival, two used local failure, and one used colostomy-free survival.

37 condary endpoints were overall survival, and colostomy-free survival.

38 atistically significant predictors of OS and colostomy-free survival.

39 servation was as follows: disease-free, 77%; colostomy-free, 100%; and overall, 85%.

40 The RRs for requiring colostomy/ileostomy, liver biopsy, or developing cirrhos

41 The data demonstrated the need for colostomy in the face of shock and comorbidities.

42 ed Sugarbaker technique when a permanent end-colostomy is needed.

43 vary across these modalities, and permanent colostomy is often indicated when they fail.

44 ceived anticancer therapy or surgery (except colostomy or ileostomy) 28 days or less before the first

45 2.36-5.70), less likely to have a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.53; 95%CI, 0.30-0.93), and less likely

46 ore left hemicolectomies and procedures with colostomies (p=0.000), were older (p=0.002), and lost mo

47 gnificantly associated with a higher rate of colostomy (P = .03) than was mitomycin-based therapy.

48 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35; P = .92), permanent colostomy rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.70-1.32; P = .81), 3

49 ve a detrimental effect on local failure and colostomy rate in anal cancer.

50 atment variable that predicts TTC and 5-year colostomy rate in patients with anal carcinoma.

51 acil/cisplatin and radiotherapy had a higher colostomy rate than patients treated with concurrent 5-f

52 Similarly, the cumulative 5-year colostomy rate was statistically significantly higher fo

53 mpare resection margin positivity, permanent colostomy rate, 30-day readmission, 90-day mortality, an

54 ed therapy resulted in a significantly worse colostomy rate.

55 At 4 years, colostomy rates were lower (9% v 22%; P = .002), colosto

56 For rectal cancer, adjusted colostomy rates were significantly higher for low-volume

57 lume to postoperative and overall mortality, colostomy rates, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.

58 This was followed by a colostomy takedown and pull-through procedure at a later

59 val (OS), disease-free survival, and time to colostomy (TTC) with pretreatment and treatment variable

60 Permanent colostomy was considered successful in 86% of refractory

61 tween surgeon procedure volume and permanent colostomy was diminished.

62 clear whether this difference in the rate of colostomy was due to the chemotherapy agents, the use of

63 The cumulative rate of colostomy was significantly better for mitomycin-based t

64 ic abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy were randomized (1 : 1) to the mesh and nonmes

65 Surgical decompression with colostomy with or without resection and eventual re-anas

66 avoided major surgery and averted permanent colostomy without loss of oncological safety at 3 years.