ライフサイエンスコーパス: anastomotic

1 pically placed stents can successfully treat anastomotic and staple line leaks after bariatric surger

2 well-defined risks of respiratory, cardiac, anastomotic, and septic complications.

3 No difference in anastomotic biliary leakage was observed between groups.

4 2 patients (12 men, aged 51+/-11 years) with anastomotic biliary stricture after LDLT.

5 nce of HHV-6 in bile was associated with non-anastomotic biliary strictures (NAS) and acute cellular

6 CD) donors remains the high incidence of non-anastomotic biliary strictures (NAS).

7 cally feasible and safe for the treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures after LDLT.

8 ft survival; it does not seem to prevent non-anastomotic biliary strictures in livers donated after c

9 No differences in non-anastomotic biliary strictures, primary nonfunction and

10 rmanent stoma (38.0% vs 29.8%, P = 0.13) and anastomotic breakdown (7.1% vs 3.5%, P = 0.26) rates fav

11 Bowel obstruction and anastomotic breakdown were classed as major complication

12 Clinical leakage was defined as anastomotic complication requiring intervention or inter

13 was associated with readmissions related to anastomotic complications (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36).

14 c regression modeling to assess the risk for anastomotic complications (reoperation, rescue stoma, re

15 ated with a significantly increased risk for anastomotic complications among patients undergoing none

16 When anastomotic complications do occur, there is less need f

17 he LLT group, but the incidence of bronchial anastomotic complications was higher in the PDLT group b

18 on rates, sphincter preservations, and wound/anastomotic complications.

19 and compression colorectal anastomosis, and anastomotic configuration.

20 sels had few branch points and many vascular anastomotic connections among larger vessels.

21 h before this time point (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36-48 months vs 6-12 months after su

22 % CI, 0.37-0.98; P = .031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months of surge

23 At laparostomy revision, the incidence of anastomotic dehiscence was greater than that of primary

24 a composite of mortality, pneumonia, sepsis, anastomotic dehiscence, wound infection, noncardiac resp

25 y may reduce the risk of pelvic sepsis after anastomotic dehiscence.

26 nd-sewn anastomosis more frequently required anastomotic dilatation (P = 0.02).

27 stomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, and anastomotic dilatation in patients with lower thoracic e

28 otic leakage and stricture, and the need for anastomotic dilatation.

29 intersuture distance, suture distance to the anastomotic edge, and tension on the suture.

30 rmed identifying independent risk factors of anastomotic failure and an observed risk score developed

31 t, including postoperative complications and anastomotic failure as outcome variables in 2 separate m

32 actors was associated with observed rates of anastomotic failure between 6.3% to 50% based on the cum

33 The overall anastomotic failure rate was 15.7%.

34 Independent risk factors of anastomotic failure were: male sex, obesity, smoking, di

35 Primary endpoint was "anastomotic failure," defined as a composite endpoint of

36 liary stents were protective factors against anastomotic failure.

37 patients who smoke have the highest risk of anastomotic failure.

38 he incidences in postoperative infection and anastomotic failure.

39 delayed leak (2.0%), pelvic abscess (4.7%), anastomotic fistula (0.8%), chronic sinus (0.9%), and an

40 nt of early or delayed leak, pelvic abscess, anastomotic fistula, chronic sinus, or anastomotic stric

41 rmines postoperative morbidity and long-term anastomotic function.

42 murine long bone involves the extension and anastomotic fusion of endothelial buds.

43 s with experts, we advocate stop considering anastomotic healing in the gastrointestinal tract and cu

44 tudies have suggested that NSAIDs may impair anastomotic healing in the gastrointestinal tract.

45 Since knowledge on anastomotic healing is lacking, it remains difficult to

46 rvention studies should at least address the anastomotic healing process in terms of histology and ce

47 Finally, the anastomotic healing process ought to be further elucidat

48 les on colorectal anastomotic techniques and anastomotic healing published in the past 4 decades were

49 While many researchers compare anastomotic healing with wound healing in the skin, ther

50 ical relationship between good perfusion and anastomotic healing.

51 Median anastomotic height from anal verge was 3.0 +/- 2.0 cm wi

52 The anastomotic height was 3.5 +/- 1.9 cm from the anal verg

53 tients in our cohort presenting with delayed anastomotic hemorrhage of the donor duodenum (2.5%).

54 ladder-derived SPK transplant patients, with anastomotic hemorrhage of the donor duodenum as a very l

55 When anastomotic insufficiency was suspected but no extravasa

56 esult of a perforation of a hollow viscus or anastomotic insufficiency who had undergone OAT were inc

57 in the foregut and has been used to confirm anastomotic integrity after pancreatic surgery.

58 lyps occur in the duodenal bulb and the post-anastomotic jejunum, but limited data exists regarding t

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

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

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

62 SSIPK+ patients also had lower rates of anastomotic leak (2.7% vs 6.8%, P = 0.04), prolonged pos

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

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

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

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

67 frequent being nonsurgical infections (23%), anastomotic leak (9.8%), other postoperative abnormal fl

68 anastomosis, NSAIDs were not associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.58-

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

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

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

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

73 weighted OR = (0.74) 1.22 (2.02) ; P = .4), anastomotic leak (CACPR: 1.6%, non-CACPR: 2.0%; weighted

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

75 wound dehiscence (OR = 0.43, P = 0.001), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P < 0.001).

76 rgan space infection (OR = 0.59, P = 0.005), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.53, P = 0.002).

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

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

79 between standard and prolonged TTS regarding anastomotic leak (P = 0.596), conduit necrosis (P = 0.52

80 erval (CI) 0.46-0.56, P < 0.00001, I = 13%], anastomotic leak (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001

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

82 Anastomotic leak after anterior resection increased mort

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

84 Anastomotic leak after colon resection for cancer is a f

85 Anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery is a severe co

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

87 verall postsurgical complications, including anastomotic leak and abdominal abscess.

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

89 Anastomotic leak and its sequelae are dreaded complicati

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 Abscess/anastomotic leak increased time to adjuvant chemotherapy

97 Anastomotic leak is a potentially devastating complicati

98 Anastomotic leak is still one of the most devastating co

99 Anastomotic leak is still the most dreaded complication

100 Anastomotic leak occurred in 16% of patients, 2% require

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

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

103 There was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (8.1% HL vs 6.7% LL).

104 The anastomotic leak rate in patients who received an anasto

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

106 deviation 7.01), 30-day mortality was 1.5%, anastomotic leak rate was 3.1%.

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

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

109 ains an issue related to functional outcome, anastomotic leak rate, and oncological adequacy.

110 HL does not seem to increase the anastomotic leak rate.

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

112 no significant difference was seen in SSI or anastomotic leak rates, but there was a significant redu

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

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

115 Anastomotic leak significantly increased mortality (15.2

116 organ space infection, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leak than no preparation and a lower rate of

117 The incidence of clinical anastomotic leak was 3.5%.

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

119 Anastomotic leak was associated with the incidence of en

120 Anastomotic leak was correlated with the requirement for

121 Anastomotic leak was the most commonly reported morbidit

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

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

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

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

126 The outcome measures examined were SSI, anastomotic leak, 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, d

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

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

129 198 study patients, 168 had no demonstrated anastomotic leak, free fluid, or abscess at any time aft

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

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

132 n rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margi

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

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

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

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

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

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

139 by concerns around increased risk of AKI and anastomotic leak.

140 t and to correlate perfusion with subsequent anastomotic leak.

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

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

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

144 helps reduce risk of clinically significant anastomotic leak.

145 mportant implications in the pathogenesis of anastomotic leak.

146 postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and anastomotic leak.

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

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

149 related to pulmonary complications (25.7%), anastomotic leakage (15.9%), and cardiac events (13.5%).

150 al site infection (3.2% vs 9.0%, P < 0.001), anastomotic leakage (2.8% vs 5.7%, P = 0.001), and proce

151 Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most dreaded compli

152 The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 135 of 915 patients (14.8%)

153 t method, with the development of colorectal anastomotic leakage (AL).

154 Colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) is the single most important d

155 larly, 92% of COX-2-deficient mice developed anastomotic leakage (P = 0.003) compared to WT.

156 2-administered COX-2 knockout mice developed anastomotic leakage (P = 0.02).

157 Rate of anastomotic leakage (stapler: 3.0%, hand suture: 1.8%, P

158 ogical outcome for patients with and without anastomotic leakage after colon or rectal cancer surgery

159 stric tube is an independent risk factor for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.

160 Little is known about late detected anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rec

161 e negatively influenced by the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

162 ore, we investigated the association between anastomotic leakage and a human polymorphism of the COX-

163 Other findings included a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage and a reduction in the length of pos

164 usion and will thus contribute to preventing anastomotic leakage and failure caused by tissue necrosi

165 oluble contrast swallow for the detection of anastomotic leakage and its clinical symptoms were analy

166 ntly used, but their effect on postoperative anastomotic leakage and morbidity has not been investiga

167 Secondary aims included the incidence of anastomotic leakage and oncological outcomes.

168 h postoperatively out of fear for increasing anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications.

169 ively treated patients, 8 (11%) patients had anastomotic leakage and reinterventions were required in

170 erative outcomes, including reflux symptoms, anastomotic leakage and stricture, and the need for anas

171 When symptoms of anastomotic leakage are present, a CT-scan and endoscopy

172 tus of the technical evolution of ttMIE with anastomotic leakage as predominant surgical complication

173 Independent predictors for anastomotic leakage at any time during follow-up were ne

174 ns, the corresponding risks were reduced for anastomotic leakage by 24%, for deep infection/abscess b

175 nflammatory drug inhibiting COX-2, increased anastomotic leakage compared to vehicle-treated mice (10

176 The mean incidence of anastomotic leakage decreased from 18.8% during the lear

177 this study were to test the hypothesis that anastomotic leakage develops when pathogens colonizing a

178 often used as a routine screening to exclude anastomotic leakage during the first postoperative week.

179 t, delayed gastric emptying in six patients, anastomotic leakage from the gastrojejunostomy line in t

180 The role of anastomotic leakage in oncological outcome after colorec

181 ly enteral nutrition is associated with less anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing extensive rec

182 Anastomotic leakage is associated with higher rates of r

183 Anastomotic leakage occurred in 8% of the patients after

184 Moreover, anastomotic leakage occurred significantly less frequent

185 ow power, no conclusions on the influence of anastomotic leakage on outcomes after colon surgery coul

186 Sarcopenia was not predictive for anastomotic leakage or sepsis.

187 after conv-LRYGB had a clinically increased anastomotic leakage rate (2.07% vs 1.18%, P = 0.070) and

188 obot-assisted hand-sewing showed the highest anastomotic leakage rate (33%), while lower rates were o

189 Endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate and postoperative morbidity in

190 Anastomotic leakage rate did not differ in the intervent

191 spectively, and secondary endpoints included anastomotic leakage rate.

192 COX-2 expression, was associated with higher anastomotic leakage rates.

193 The incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperat

194 The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperat

195 of increased risk of local recurrence after anastomotic leakage throughout the follow-up is mandator

196 cans and upper endoscopy, the true number of anastomotic leakage was 15.

197 Anastomotic leakage was diagnosed in 13.4% within 30 day

198 For colon cancer, anastomotic leakage was not associated with increased pe

199 Postoperatively, 38 (14.67%) cases of anastomotic leakage were detected in the hand-sewn anast

200 Independent predictors for anastomotic leakage were determined using a binary logis

201 TMIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage, 90-day mortality and other postoper

202 ce operation times and decrease the rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, and anastomo

203 dence of incisional surgical site infection, anastomotic leakage, and hospital readmission when compa

204 teral nutrition reduced postoperative ileus, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay.

205 us mice were subjected to a model of colonic anastomotic leakage, and were treated with vehicle, dicl

206 reatment of obesity include i.a.: intestinal anastomotic leakage, impaired intestinal permeability an

207 We assessed anastomotic leakage, mortality, angiogenesis, and inflam

208 ty, cardiovascular complications, bleedings, anastomotic leakage, or allograft rejection.

209 psis within 30 postoperative days, including anastomotic leakage, pelvic abscess, and peritonitis.

210 Secondary outcome parameters included anastomotic leakage, pneumonia rate, and other surgical

211 Anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, and other postoperative

212 Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, and other surgical compl

213 In patients with anastomotic leakage, presence and severity of calcificat

214 Predictors for anastomotic leakage, sepsis, and mortality were analyzed

215 rning curve) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage, that could have been avoided if pat

216 of the 4 hospitals reached the plateau of 8% anastomotic leakage.

217 asation of the contrast agent was defined as anastomotic leakage.

218 inhibitors have been associated with colonic anastomotic leakage.

219 ts without clinical or radiological signs of anastomotic leakage.

220 Of 246 patients, 58 (24%) experienced anastomotic leakage.

221 5-year follow-up were found in patients with anastomotic leakage.

222 related to the operation, especially due to anastomotic leakage.

223 k factor for postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage.

224 The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage.

225 ents (10.1%) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage.

226 juvant radiotherapy, shows that one third of anastomotic leakages is diagnosed beyond 30 days, and al

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

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

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

230 Anastomotic leaks and reinterventions were more frequent

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

232 Anastomotic leaks are a major source of morbidity after

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

246 Oral contrast swallow detected 7 anastomotic leaks.

247 We registered 28 (5.6%) anastomotic leaks.

248 foration and in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks.

249 y for treating benign esophageal ruptures or anastomotic leaks.

250 The risk of CRC at a non-anastomotic location was significantly reduced more than

251 Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of

252 The use of LAA may contribute to reduced anastomotic morbidity.

253 icture occurs secondary to bile duct injury, anastomotic narrowing, or chronic inflammation and fibro

254 ble to rapidly identify new perforations and anastomotic or primary repair dehiscences; although this

255 s were analyzed for patients who experienced anastomotic or staple line leaks after bariatric surgery

256 tecting local ischemia caused by unfavorable anastomotic perfusion and will thus contribute to preven

257 ging is a safe and feasible method to assess anastomotic perfusion, and its use might affect the inci

258 at the fourth month revealed improvement in anastomotic plaques with reduction in bronchoalveolar la

259 Anastomotic pseudoaneurysm is an underestimated complica

260 thousand five hundred ninety-four cases with anastomotic reconstruction were analyzed; 96.6% performe

261 obotic surgery allows complex resections and anastomotic reconstructions to be performed with nearly

262 and clinical decision-making that may reduce anastomotic-related morbidity.

263 eporting donor arterial inflow and recipient anastomotic site delivering inflow to the graft and offe

264 dium, and 3 patients had an abscess near the anastomotic site without extravasation of contrast mediu

265 c leakage develops when pathogens colonizing anastomotic sites become in vivo transformed to express

266 olytic bacteria counts and PLG deposition at anastomotic sites.

267 16 subjects, MRA detected moderate to severe anastomotic stenoses, which were confirmed at catheter a

268 a significantly higher incidence of arterial anastomotic stenosis (6.8% vs. 0.4%, P=0.02) and hydrone

269 dilatation of the stomach, gastrointestinal anastomotic stenosis, marginal ulceration, incisional he

270 ors associated with increased EBL were trans-anastomotic stent placement, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, p

271 ic fistula (0.8%), chronic sinus (0.9%), and anastomotic stricture in 3.6% of cases.

272 for preventing a pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) anastomotic stricture in both a rat and porcine model.

273 Anastomotic stricture occurred less frequently in the pa

274 d decrease the rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, and anastomotic dilatation in pat

275 effective procedure for the prevention of PJ anastomotic stricture.

276 cess, anastomotic fistula, chronic sinus, or anastomotic stricture.

277 7% for non-NRP livers, P < .0001), and fewer anastomotic strictures (7% vs. 27% non-NRP, P = .0041).

278 FBD for anastomotic strictures after esophageal atresia repair i

279 d Kaffes stent insertion for post-transplant anastomotic strictures following confirmation of a stric

280 Biliary anastomotic strictures occurred in 1 DCD patient and 3 D

281 We report our experience of treating anastomotic strictures using a novel type of fully cover

282 The incidence of anastomotic strictures was higher in patients with no T-

283 Fewer anastomotic strictures were found in the T-tube group (n

284 e at resolving post liver transplant biliary anastomotic strictures.

285 one case of postoperative bleeding from the anastomotic suture line were reported.

286 , surgical technique (laparoscopic vs open), anastomotic technique (staple vs handsewn), number of ma

287 Multivariable analysis confirmed anastomotic technique as independent predictor of leakag

288 We believe detailed documentation of the anastomotic technique of all colorectal operations is ne

289 studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other.

290 In McKeown RAMIE, a hand-sewn anastomotic technique showed the highest leakage rate (2

291 orts have questioned the classical tenets of anastomotic technique such as water-tight anastomoses, t

292 ical and experimental articles on colorectal anastomotic techniques and anastomotic healing published

293 or esophagogastric reconstruction, different anastomotic techniques are currently used, but their eff

294 The aim of this study was to describe anastomotic techniques used for total minimally invasive

295 Five anastomotic techniques were identified in 966 patients a

296 ), hand-sewn (30%), and linear stapled (18%) anastomotic techniques were used.

297 nd postoperative morbidity in correlation to anastomotic techniques, measured by the Clavien-Dindo cl

298 e for rectal resection, which includes novel anastomotic techniques.

299 ed P1) and the strain retrieved from leaking anastomotic tissues (termed P2) demonstrated that P2 was

300 Anastomotic TRAS developed in living donor recipients; p