ライフサイエンスコーパス: ileostomy

1 nt in 19 of these patients (2 have permanent ileostomies).

2 ed to identify adults undergoing their first ileostomy.

3 d suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy.

4 e instillation of vancomycin flushes via the ileostomy.

5 estinal transit was analyzed in animals with ileostomy.

6 l of the pouch or the need for an indefinite ileostomy.

7 leal pouch anal anastomosis and a protective ileostomy.

8 s required bowel resection, jejunostomy, and ileostomy.

9 ch anal anastomoses (IPAA) with a protective ileostomy.

10 olyposis, of which all but 2 were without an ileostomy.

11 equired eventual pouch removal and permanent ileostomy.

12 ith multiple previous resections required an ileostomy.

13 vs. 46 cm), and were more likely to require ileostomy.

14 spiration in samples from patients with open ileostomies.

15 nt between the control (18.4 +/- 2.2 mg) and ileostomy (13.5 +/- 3.2 mg) subjects.

16 ncer therapy or surgery (except colostomy or ileostomy) 28 days or less before the first dose of stud

17 In all, 407 patients underwent new ileostomy; 58% had cancer, 31% IBD; 49% underwent LAR, 2

18 It is safe to close a temporary ileostomy 8 to 13 days after rectal resection and anasto

19 P < 0.02) and by the omission of a temporary ileostomy (8.3 versus 10.4 days; P = 0.005).

20 colectomy (39.1%), enterolysis (19.0% MIS), ileostomy (9.0% MIS), enterectomy (5.2% MIS), vagotomy (

21 ndomized patients undergoing closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection because of rectal

22 evant complication following closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection.

23 Therefore, we hypothesized that the ileostomy allows oxygen into the otherwise anaerobic dis

24 Loop ileostomy and colonic lavage are an alternative to colec

25 omy with end ileostomy are satisfied with an ileostomy and do not choose to undergo later pelvic pouc

26 ration has alleviated the need for permanent ileostomy and has improved associated self-esteem issues

27 ene glycol 3350/electrolyte solution via the ileostomy and postoperative antegrade instillation of va

28 to require blood transfusions and permanent ileostomy and to show a greater trend to early symptomat

29 y 1989, 192 as a one-stage procedure without ileostomy, and 1 with a concurrent Whipple procedure for

30 3%) underwent total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy, and 1172 (47.3%) received ileal pouch-anal an

31 rgery, after colectomy and before closure of ileostomy, and at 1 or more years after surgery.

32 anastomosis, total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy, and partial colectomy (PC).

33 ients undergoing subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy are satisfied with an ileostomy and do not cho

34 nety-nine (46%) patients had a defunctioning ileostomy at time of pouch construction.

35 owed by perforated abdominal viscus (11.5%), ileostomy closure (6.5%), trauma (2.7%), and intra-abdom

36 primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes.

37 nastomosis versus stapler ileo-ileostomy for ileostomy closure are equally effective in terms of post

38 and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly g

39 to compare hand suture versus stapling loop ileostomy closure in a randomized controlled trial.

40 Patients with subclinical leaks and ileostomy closure leak were not included in the septic c

41 he overall rate of postoperative ileus after ileostomy closure was 13.4%.

42 Ileostomy closure was carried out after a mean of 88.7 d

43 cores did not change significantly following ileostomy closure, and anorectal physiological testing w

44 te of bowel obstruction within 30 days after ileostomy closure.

45 rative proctocolectomy or within 3 months of ileostomy closure.

46 operation/wound infection, and no closure of ileostomy/colostomy.

47 Early closure of the temporary ileostomy could reduce complications for rectal cancer p

48 The ileostomy created at time of transplant for ongoing moni

49 uses and predictors of readmission after new ileostomy creation.

50 = 68) were measured in this pilot study from ileostomy effluent in patients with histologic evidence

51 Ileostomy effluents were collected at various postoperat

52 In contrast, CD patient ileostomy fluid contained both precursor and mature form

53 Levels of HD-5 in Paneth cells and ileostomy fluid from control and CD patients were studie

54 Fifty-six samples of ileostomy fluid or stool from 11 rejection and 45 nonrej

55 HD-5 levels in ileostomy fluid were lower in CD patients (n = 51) than

56 In control ileostomy fluid, HD-5 was present in the mature form onl

57 patients had required a proctectomy and end ileostomy for Crohn's disease.

58 Hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapler ileo-ileostomy for ileostomy closure are equally effective in

59 2 mg/kg/d) or vehicle was given through the ileostomy from 2 days before until 2 weeks after irradia

60 volume, bowel anatomy (group 1, jejunostomy/ileostomy; group 2, >/=50% colon-in-continuity without s

61 best surgical technique for closure of loop ileostomy has not been defined yet.

62 atment of total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy improves survival in severe, complicated CDAD,

63 , and may avoid pouch excision and permanent ileostomy in carefully selected patients, especially tho

64 ed patient with the short-bowel syndrome and ileostomy in whom parenteral nutrition could not be used

65 urgical approach involved creation of a loop ileostomy, intraoperative colonic lavage with warmed pol

66 However, the temporary ileostomy is afflicted with complications and requires a

67 ot receive a transplant, suggesting that the ileostomy itself is the primary ecological determinant s

68 The RRs for requiring colostomy/ileostomy, liver biopsy, or developing cirrhosis were 5.

69 A temporary ileostomy may reduce the risk of pelvic sepsis after ana

70 zed to HP (n = 30) and to PA (with diverting ileostomy, n = 32), with a planned stoma reversal operat

71 Diverting ileostomy or colectomy appear to be equally effective su

72 Proctocolectomy with ileostomy or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis returns the pa

73 colectomy, a total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy, or a combined total proctocolectomy and ileal

74 e to regular diet (3 versus 5 days), time to ileostomy output (2 versus 3 days), length of stay (4 ve

75 ed clinical trial favoring PA with diverting ileostomy over HP in patients with perforated diverticul

76 A randomized crossover trial in 9 healthy ileostomy participants was designed to compare the effec

77 epeated intraluminal drug administration, an ileostomy, proximal to the bowel loop in the scrotum, wa

78 Ileostomy rats presented with a significant delay in sma

79 Nine of 14 patients underwent ileostomy reversal and were followed up for a minimum of

80 ur patients have not yet been considered for ileostomy reversal due to anastomotic perineal fistulae.

81 Postoperative ileus after ileostomy reversal remains a relevant complication.

82 PA with ileostomy seems to be superior to HP; however, results i

83 nctional gastrointestinal tracts (n = 6) and ileostomy subjects (n = 6) were fed a single soy meal co

84 l, and O-desmethylangolensin in the urine of ileostomy subjects also were lower than those of control

85 Microbial threonine of normal and ileostomy subjects appears in the blood plasma but the n

86 Ileostomy subjects efficiently deglycosylate isoflavonoi

87 ll subjects, although the amount excreted by ileostomy subjects was less than that excreted by the co

88 as examined by analyzing ileal effluent from ileostomy subjects, and absorption was assessed indirect

89 l metabolites of isoflavonoids is limited in ileostomy subjects.

90 After surgical closure of the ileostomy, the community reverted to the normal structur

91 13 days after stoma creation) of a temporary ileostomy was compared with late closure (>12 weeks) in

92 A loop graft ileostomy was fashioned for protocol biopsies and taken

93 stoma reversal rate after PA with diverting ileostomy was higher (90% vs 57%, P = 0.005) and serious

94 itions; in 137 patients (35%), the temporary ileostomy was omitted; in 117 patients (29.9%), the ilea

95 A temporary ileostomy was used in 85% of the patients.

96 caused a clinically significant increase in ileostomy water output.

97 A jejunostomy and a Bishop-Koop ileostomy were constructed for biopsies.

98 his inverted community also in patients with ileostomies who did not receive a transplant, suggesting

99 Patients with a temporary ileostomy without signs of postoperative complications w