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

3 leal pouch anal anastomosis and a protective ileostomy.

4 s required bowel resection, jejunostomy, and ileostomy.

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

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

7 equired eventual pouch removal and permanent ileostomy.

8 ith multiple previous resections required an ileostomy.

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

10 serving surgery, with a temporary protecting ileostomy.

11 investigated in four patients with terminal ileostomy.

12 y anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy.

13 n, for which he required laparotomy and loop ileostomy.

14 ed to identify adults undergoing their first ileostomy.

15 d suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy.

16 e instillation of vancomycin flushes via the ileostomy.

17 estinal transit was analyzed in animals with ileostomy.

18 spiration in samples from patients with open ileostomies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 In patients with a benign diagnosis or an ileostomy, a parastomal bulge impacted significantly on

26 e first of its kind analysis of the surgical ileostomy after ITx reveals that most recipients can und

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

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

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

30 Loop ileostomy and colonic lavage are an alternative to colec

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

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

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

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

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

36 3%) underwent total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy, and 1172 (47.3%) received ileal pouch-anal an

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

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

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

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

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

42 Operative time was longer for Delayed loop ileostomy closure (p < 0.05).

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

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

45 Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure between 2013 and 2023 at Carilion Medi

46 y is to investigate outcomes of delayed loop ileostomy closure greater than 12 months after creation.

47 imited data on complications associated with ileostomy closure greater than 12 months after creation.

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

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

50 ssociated complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure in the robotic group.

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

52 Delayed loop ileostomy closure more than 12 months after creation doe

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

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

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

56 ere is no consensus on the optimal timing of ileostomy closure, and there is limited data on complica

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

58 rative proctocolectomy or within 3 months of ileostomy closure.

59 bidities, cancer, immunosuppressive therapy, ileostomy/colostomy, incomplete questionnaires, or lack

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

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

62 The ileostomy created at time of transplant for ongoing moni

63 uses and predictors of readmission after new ileostomy creation.

64 Temporary ileostomy during intestinal transplantation (ITx) is the

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

66 Ileostomy effluent was collected and analysed daily for

67 Ileostomy effluents were collected at various postoperat

68 uch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) or permanent end ileostomy (EI).

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

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

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

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

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

74 RCTs evaluating EC vs. LC of defunctioning ileostomies for rectal cancer patients were included.

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

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

77 y anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent o

78 tients who underwent bowel resection without ileostomy formation (reference group).

79 nity-onset AKI modified associations between ileostomy formation and new-onset CKD (P = 0.002).

80 s study was to examine relationships between ileostomy formation and subsequent kidney disease.

81 n analyses comparing patients that underwent ileostomy formation and subsequent reversal within 1 yea

82 The analysis was divided into ileostomy formation and takedown episodes.

83 Colonic absorptive capacity loss from ileostomy formation can cause volume depletion and could

84 Ileostomy formation is strongly associated with subseque

85 The aOR for community-onset AKI with ileostomy formation was 4.08 [95% confidence interval (C

86 ohort study comparing patients who underwent ileostomy formation with or without bowel resection (ile

87 One hundred thirty-five grafts underwent ileostomy formation, and 79 underwent ileostomy takedown

88 that most recipients can undergo successful ileostomy formation/takedown, complication rates are sig

89 Ileostomy formation: Thirty-one grafts had complications

90 2 mg/kg/d) or vehicle was given through the ileostomy from 2 days before until 2 weeks after irradia

91 Among 19,889 patients, 4136 comprised the ileostomy group and 15,753 comprised the reference group

92 Odds of new-onset CKD were increased in the ileostomy group relative to the reference group for pati

93 y formation with or without bowel resection (ileostomy group) to patients who underwent bowel resecti

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

95 A detailed analysis of the ITx ileostomy has never been reported.

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

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

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

99 EC of defunctioning ileostomy in rectal cancer patients results in increased

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

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

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

103 A defunctioning ileostomy is frequently created to avert the implication

104 Diverting loop ileostomy is performed after colectomy to allow for anas

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

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

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

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

109 hich evaluated the effect of EC versus LC of ileostomy on surgical outcomes in rectal cancer patients

110 Diverting ileostomy or colectomy appear to be equally effective su

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

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

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

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

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

116 molar concentrations in ileal fluid from the ileostomy patients and in stools of the Crohn's patients

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

118 Ileostomy rats presented with a significant delay in sma

119 The timing of closure of the ileostomy remains debatable as it is believed that early

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

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

122 Postoperative ileus after ileostomy reversal remains a relevant complication.

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

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

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

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

127 Ileostomy subjects efficiently deglycosylate isoflavonoi

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

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

130 l metabolites of isoflavonoids is limited in ileostomy subjects.

131 Ileostomy takedown: Ileostomy takedown occurred at a median of 422 days post

132 in graft type, ileostomy type, survival, and ileostomy takedown rate between grafts with and without

133 erwent ileostomy formation, and 79 underwent ileostomy takedown.

134 Ileostomy takedown: Ileostomy takedown occurred at a med

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

136 within 1 year to the reference group without ileostomy, the relationship with new-onset CKD was atten

137 Graft type, ileostomy type, and survival were not different.

138 re no significant differences in graft type, ileostomy type, survival, and ileostomy takedown rate be

139 Final ileostomy types were end (20%), loop (10%), distal blowh

140 13 days after stoma creation) of a temporary ileostomy was compared with late closure (>12 weeks) in

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

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

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

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

145 caused a clinically significant increase in ileostomy water output.

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

147 patients undergoing routine surgery with an ileostomy were invited to participate in the study.

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

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