首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   3335篇
  免费   252篇
  国内免费   98篇
耳鼻咽喉   21篇
儿科学   70篇
妇产科学   13篇
基础医学   560篇
口腔科学   22篇
临床医学   394篇
内科学   603篇
皮肤病学   45篇
神经病学   195篇
特种医学   128篇
外科学   482篇
综合类   399篇
一般理论   1篇
预防医学   252篇
眼科学   19篇
药学   231篇
  7篇
中国医学   143篇
肿瘤学   100篇
  2024年   12篇
  2023年   67篇
  2022年   113篇
  2021年   166篇
  2020年   125篇
  2019年   122篇
  2018年   121篇
  2017年   115篇
  2016年   122篇
  2015年   91篇
  2014年   185篇
  2013年   254篇
  2012年   174篇
  2011年   208篇
  2010年   147篇
  2009年   182篇
  2008年   161篇
  2007年   154篇
  2006年   124篇
  2005年   140篇
  2004年   84篇
  2003年   85篇
  2002年   83篇
  2001年   61篇
  2000年   54篇
  1999年   46篇
  1998年   45篇
  1997年   46篇
  1996年   54篇
  1995年   39篇
  1994年   47篇
  1993年   29篇
  1992年   22篇
  1991年   20篇
  1990年   27篇
  1989年   12篇
  1988年   15篇
  1987年   14篇
  1986年   6篇
  1985年   35篇
  1984年   15篇
  1983年   12篇
  1982年   14篇
  1981年   8篇
  1980年   11篇
  1979年   6篇
  1978年   4篇
  1975年   2篇
  1973年   2篇
  1972年   2篇
排序方式: 共有3685条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
91.
目的 比较治疗继发性胆总管结石的两种开腹胆道探查手术方式(术中胆道镜经胆囊颈管胆总管探查术与传统胆道切开探查T管引流术)的临床效果.方法 符合入组标准病例113例,传统术式58例,经胆囊颈管胆道探查55例.对手术成功率、手术时间、术后并发症、住院时间、住院费用等指标行对照研究.结果 两组均成功完成手术且无严重术后并发症,手术时间经胆囊管胆道探查术组与传统手术组无显著差异,平均住院时间及住院费用经胆囊管胆道探查组显著低于传统手术组.结论 对于继发性胆总管结石,经胆囊颈管途径胆道探查较传统方式有较明显优势,应作为胆道探查的首选途径.  相似文献   
92.
A 32-year-old male with type I diabetes presented with profound hypoglycemia due to exogenous insulin antibody syndrome in the setting of newly-diagnosed common variable immunodeficiency. Immunomodulatory therapy was not initially effective, but after the initiation of plasma exchange hypoglycemia resolved, and glucose lability improved.  相似文献   
93.
94.
Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) represents a heterogeneous group of rare disorders. There is considerable morbidity and mortality as a result of non-infectious complications, and this presents clinicians with management challenges. Clinical guidelines to support the management of CVID are urgently required. The UK Primary Immunodeficiency Network and the British Society for Immunology funded a joint project to address this. A modified Delphi Survey was conducted for the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of the non-infectious blood, respiratory, gut and liver complications of CVID. A steering group of 10 consultant immunologists and one nurse specialist developed and reviewed the survey statements and agreed the final recommendations. In total, 22 recommendations and three areas for research were developed.  相似文献   
95.
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation may result in gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications. However, no previous studies have reported 30-day GI and non-GI complications after diagnostic EGD under sedation.We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 30-day GI and non-GI complication rates after outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation in subjects ≥18 years between January 2012 and December 2017 based on a common data model database. Thirty-day complication rates were compared with EGD under sedation or not, type of sedation drugs (midazolam only vs midazolam/propofol) and age groups (18-64 year vs ≥65 year) for GI (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and cerebral stroke).In total, 39,910 were performed with sedation (midazolam only, n = 16,033 and midazolam/propofol, n = 23,864) and 22,894 were performed without sedation. Elderly patients significantly favored EGD without sedation (P < .01). GI and non-GI complication rates were similar between EGD under sedation and without sedation (all P > .1) except for acute myocardial infarction rate, which was significantly higher in EGD without sedation than EGD under sedation (1.7/10,000 vs 0.3/10,000 persons, P = .043). All GI and non-GI complications were also similar between the midazolam/propofol and midazolam only groups as well as between young and old patients (all P > .1).Outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation has an excellent safety profile. In addition, it can be safely performed with midazolam only or midazolam/propofol and in young and old patients.  相似文献   
96.
97.
Pooling neural imaging data across subjects requires aligning recordings from different subjects. In magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings, sensors across subjects are poorly correlated both because of differences in the exact location of the sensors, and structural and functional differences in the brains. It is possible to achieve alignment by assuming that the same regions of different brains correspond across subjects. However, this relies on both the assumption that brain anatomy and function are well correlated, and the strong assumptions that go into solving the under‐determined inverse problem given the high‐dimensional source space. In this article, we investigated an alternative method that bypasses source‐localization. Instead, it analyzes the sensor recordings themselves and aligns their temporal signatures across subjects. We used a multivariate approach, multiset canonical correlation analysis (M‐CCA), to transform individual subject data to a low‐dimensional common representational space. We evaluated the robustness of this approach over a synthetic dataset, by examining the effect of different factors that add to the noise and individual differences in the data. On an MEG dataset, we demonstrated that M‐CCA performs better than a method that assumes perfect sensor correspondence and a method that applies source localization. Last, we described how the standard M‐CCA algorithm could be further improved with a regularization term that incorporates spatial sensor information. Hum Brain Mapp 38:4287–4301, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.  相似文献   
98.
Today, nearly 90% of common bile duct stones are extracted endoscopically. Problems are encountered if there are large stones or a duct stenosis. Extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy (EPL) as well as intracorporeal electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) serve as an alternative to surgical intervention for those few patients in whom endoscopic measures have failed. A total of 35 patients with common bile duct stones in whom conventional endoscopic treatment had failed were selected on the condition that stone visualization through ultrasound was possible and that the papilla was within easy reach of the endoscope. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly treated either by EPL or EHL. The average age of our patients was 73 years. The main reasons for failure of conventional endoscopy were due to the large size of the stones (13 patients), impacted stones (16), or the presence of a biliary stricture (6). In the EPL group, visualization of the stones by ultrasound and ensuing treatment were possible in 16 of 18 patients (89%); stones could be fragmented in 15 patients. In 13 patients, the biliary tree could then be completely freed of calculi; the success rate was 72% for all the patients (13 of 18). On average, the patients had 2.3 treatments on the lithotripter, and 3870 shock waves were applied per treatment. In the EHL group stones were successfully fragmented in 13 of 17 patients (76.5%). The average number of treatments was 1.4. Comparing both therapies, there was no difference in stone-free rates. In both groups, additional endoscopic interventions were necessary to clear the bile duct. The mean number of lithotripsy sessions was less in the EHL group (1.4 vs 2.3). There were no major differences in average hospital stay, 30-day mortality was zero in both groups. Combined treatment including EPL, EHL, and intracorporeal laser lithotripsy was finally successful in 32 patients (91.5%). It is concluded that EHL might be the method of choice for smaller, single stones in the more proximal parts of the common bile duct. In these cases, complete duct clearance in one lithotripsy session can be achieved. Multiple and large stones are probably best accessible to EPL. With a combination of the methods described, the bile duct can be cleared of concrements in almost every instance. As a result, surgery for choledocholithiasis has become the absolute exception.This work was presented in part at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the american Gastroenterological Association in Boston and published in abstract form (Gastroenterology 104:A347, 1993).  相似文献   
99.
In most countries, endoscopic sphincterotomy is the first-choice treatment for common bile-duct stones. In patients with residual gallbladder stones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the next step. The optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy remains to be determined. An alternative approach of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis consists of laparoscopic cholecystectomy together with laparoscopic stone removal. The advantage of this ‘single-stage’ therapy appears to be limited to patients with stones that can be removed transcystically. This approach is successful in about half of the patients. Laparoscopic common bile-duct exploration is technically more demanding, more time-consuming, and associated with increased postoperative morbidity. If transcystic removal is not possible, a postoperative ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy is a good option. Intraoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy are also feasible, but require specific organisational efforts.Recurrence of choledocholithiasis after ES is reported in a considerable number of patients (6–21%), resulting from de novo primary stone formation or recurrent secondary migration from the gallbladder. Primary choledocholithiasis is associated with bactobilia and delayed bile-duct clearance, indicated by CBD dilation. Endoscopic reintervention is safe and usually easy to perform. Surgery should be reserved for intractable cases. In selected patients, an underlying lithogenic bile composition (low-phospholipid-associated cholelithiasis) should be identified, and preventive medical treatment with UDCA could be considered.
• in patients with combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be followed by elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, even in the elderly; however, a ‘wait-and-see’ policy does not lead to higher mortality, and therefore expectant management can be advocated in case of significant contraindications to surgery
• laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic stone removal offers a one-stage treatment of patients with combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Laparoscopic transcystic duct clearance is associated with low morbidity and short hospital stay. In contrast, laparoscopic common bile-duct exploration remains a procedure with increased risk of biliary complications and prolonged hospital stay. In case of stones that cannot be removed transcystically, it may be wise to perform an intraoperative or early postoperative ERCP
• performing an endoscopic sphincterotomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a ‘rendezvous’ procedure may be beneficial in selected patients (especially in case of earlier failed ERCP)
• laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy is associated with increased conversion rates to open procedure compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated gallstones; laparoscopic cholecystectomy planned early after endoscopic sphincterotomy may reduce this risk
• morphological or functional bile-duct defects, indicated by a dilated CBD, may lead to bactobilia and biliary stasis, thus promoting primary stone formation
• in a subgroup of patients with recurrent bile-duct stones, an MDR3 gene mutation must be considered, resulting in low-phospholipid-associated cholelithiasis. These patients are characterised by early onset of symptoms, recurrence after cholecystectomy, hyperechogenic foci in the liver, and often a history of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Ursodeoxycholic acid is beneficial in these patients
• the optimal timing or ERCP in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (before, during, or after the operation) still needs to be defined.
• further data are needed to determine potentially increased incidence of conversion and postoperative complications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated gallstones

References

1 L. Sarli, D.R. Iusco and L. Roncoroni, Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: 10-year experience, World J Surg 27 (2003), pp. 180–186. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19)
2 L. Courvoisier, Casuistisch: statistische beitrage zur pathologie und chirurgie der Gallenwege. Leipzig 387, Vogel (1890) 57–58.
3 J.J. Gonzales, L. Sanz and J.L. Grana, Biliary lithiasis in the elderly patient: morbidity and mortality due to biliary surgery, Hepatogastroenterology 44 (1997), pp. 1565–1568.
4 L.E. Hammarstrom, T. Holmin and H. Stridbeck et al., Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study of endoscopic versus surgical treatment of bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ, Br J Surg 82 (1995), pp. 1516–1521. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (62)
5 J.P. Neoptolemos, D.L. Carr-Locke and D.P. Fossard, Prospective randomised study of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones, BMJ 294 (1987), pp. 470–474. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (133)
*6 E.M. Targarona, R.M. Perez Ayuso and J.M. Bordas et al., Randomised trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with gallbladder left in situ versus open surgery for common bile duct calculi in high-risk patients, Lancet 347 (1996), pp. 926–929. Abstract | Article | PDF (563 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (92)
7 M. Classen and L. Demling, Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of Vater and extraction of stones from the choledochal duct, Dtsch Med Wochenschr 99 (1974), pp. 467–469.
8 K. Kawai, Y. Akasaka and K. Murakami et al., Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the amulla of Vater, Gastrointest Endosc 20 (1974), pp. 148–151. Abstract | PDF (2433 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (201)
9 J. Hill, F. Martin and D.E.F. Tweedle, Risks of leaving the gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones, Br J Surg 78 (1992), pp. 554–557.
10 B.R. Davidson, J.P. Neoptolemos and D.L. Carr-Locke, Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ considered unfit for surgery, Gut 29 (1988), pp. 114–120. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (76)
11 Y.C.A. Keulemans, E.A.J. Rauws and K. Huibregtse et al., Current management of the gallbladder after endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones, Gastrointest Endosc 46 (1997), pp. 514–519. Abstract | Article | PDF (670 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24)
12 F. Dubois, G. Berthelot and H. Lavard, Cholecystectomy by coelioscopy, Presse Med 18 (1989), pp. 980–982. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (122)
*13 D. Boerma, E.A. Rauws and Y.C. Keulemans et al., Wait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile-duct stones: a randomised trial, Lancet 360 (2002), pp. 761–765. Article | PDF (89 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (81)
14 J.Y. Lau, C.K. Leow and T.M. Fung et al., Cholecystectomy or gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy and bile duct stone removal in Chinese patients, Gastroenterology 130 (2006), pp. 96–103. Article | PDF (160 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (28)
15 R. Riciardi, S. Islam and J.J. Canete et al., Effectiveness and long-term results of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, Surg Endosc 17 (2003), pp. 19–22. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (20)
16 J.P. Dorman, M.E. Franklin and J.L. Glass, Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration by choledochotomy. An effective and efficient method of treatment of choledocholithiasis, Surg Endosc 12 (1998), pp. 926–928. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (42)
17 A. Waage, C. Stromberg and C.-E. Leijonmarck et al., Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, Surg Endosc 17 (2003), pp. 1181–1185. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)
18 A.M. Paganini and E. Lezoche, Follow-up of 161 unselected consecutive patients treated laparoscopically for common bile duct stones, Surg Endosc 12 (1998), pp. 23–29. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (37)
19 I.J. Martin, I.S. Baily and M. Rhodes et al., Towards T-tube free laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a methodologic evolution during 300 consecutive procedures, Ann Surg 228 (1998), pp. 29–34. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (65)
20 E. Thompson and S.E. Tranter, All-comers policy for laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct, Br J Surg 89 (2002), pp. 1608–1612.
21 J.B. Petelin, Lessons learned from >12 years experience, Surg Endosc 17 (2003), pp. 1705–1715. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (37)
22 J.P.Y. Ha, C.N. Tang and W.T. Siu et al., Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones, Hepatogastroenterology 51 (2004), pp. 1605–1608. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)
*23 A. Cuschieri, E. Lezoche and M. Morino et al., E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi, Surg Endosc 13 (1999), pp. 952–957. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (163)
*24 M. Rhodes, L. Sussman and L. Cohen et al., Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones, Lancet 351 (1998), pp. 159–161. Abstract | Article | PDF (56 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (175)
*25 L.K. Nathanson, N.A. O'Rourke and I.J. Martin et al., Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of elected bile duct calculi. A randomized trial, Ann Surg 242 (2005), pp. 188–192. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (38)
26 G.D. De Palma, L. Angrisani and M. Lorenzo et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and common bile duct stones (CBDS) extraction for management of patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis, Surg Endosc 10 (1996), pp. 649–652. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19)
27 N. Basso, G. Pizzuto and D. Surgo et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, Gastrointest Endosc 50 (1999), pp. 532–535. Abstract | Article | PDF (24 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (25)
28 L. Enochsson, B. Lindberg and F. Swahn et al., Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to remove common bile duct stones during routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not prolong hospitalization: a 2-year experience, Surg Endosc 18 (2004), pp. 367–371. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (26)
29 F. Lella, F. Bagnolo and C. Rebuffat et al., Use of the laparoscopic-endoscopic approach, the so-called ‘rendezvous’ technique, in cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a valid method in cases with patient-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis, Surg Endosc 20 (2006), pp. 419–423. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)
30 D.F. Hong, Y. Xin and D.W. Chen, Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, Surg Endosc 20 (2006), pp. 424–427. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)
31 M. Neubrand, M. Sackmann and W.F. Caspary et al., Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten zur Behandlung von Gallensteinen, Z Gastroenterol 38 (2000), pp. 449–468. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (23)
*32 E.H. Livingston and R.V. Rege, Technical complications are rising as common duct exploration is becoming rare, J Am Coll Surg 201 (2005), pp. 426–433. Article | PDF (316 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)
*33 P.A. Abboud, P.F. Malet and J.A. Berlin et al., Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis, Gastrointest Endosc 44 (1996), pp. 450–455.
34 L. Santucci, G. Natalini and L. Sarpi et al., Selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and preoperative bile duct stone removal in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study, Am J Gastroenterol 91 (1996), pp. 1326–1330. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)
35 J. Bingener-Casey, M.L. Richards and W.E. Strodel et al., Reasons for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a 10 year review, J Gastrointest Surg 6 (2002), pp. 800–805. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (37)
36 E.H. Livingston and R.V. Rege, A nationwide study of conversion from laparosocpic to open cholecystectomy, Am J Surg 188 (2004), pp. 205–211. Article | PDF (64 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (53)
37 A.J. McMahon, I.T. Russell and G. Ramsay et al., Laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomized trial comparing postoperative pain and pulmonary function, Surgery 115 (1994), pp. 533–539. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (129)
38 A. Ros, L. Gustafsson and H. Krook et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomized, single-blind study, Ann Surg 234 (2001), pp. 741–749. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (62)
39 H.I. Hendolin, M.E. Paakonen and E.M. Alhava et al., Laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy: a prospective randomised trial to compare postoperative pain, pulmonary function, and stress response, Eur J Surg 166 (2000), pp. 394–399. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (52)
40 J.S. Barkun, A.N. Barkun and J.S. Sampalis et al., Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group, Lancet 340 (1992), pp. 1116–1119. Abstract | Article | PDF (585 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (205)
41 S. Hasukic, D. Mesic and E. Dizdarevic et al., Pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, Surg Endosc 16 (2002), pp. 163–165.
42 U. Berggren, T. Gordh and D. Grama et al., Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: hospitalization, sick leave, analgesia and trauma responses, Br J Surg 81 (1994), pp. 1362–1365. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (152)
43 J. Sand, I. Airo and K.M. Hiltunen et al., Changes in biliary bacteria after endoscopic cholangiography and sphincterotomy, Am Surg 58 (1992), pp. 324–328. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33)
44 A. Hamy, S. Hennekinne and P. Pessaux et al., Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to laparoscopic cholcystectomy for the treatment of cholelithiasis, Surg Endosc 17 (2003), pp. 872–875. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10)
45 L. Sarli, D. Iusco and G. Sgobba et al., Gallstone pancreatitis. A 10-year experience of combined endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment, Surg Endosc 16 (2002), pp. 975–980. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)
46 A. Vries de, S. Donkervoort and A.A.W. Geloven van et al., Conversion rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the treatment of choledocholithiasis: does the time interval matter?, Surg Endosc 19 (2005), pp. 996–1001.
47 J.Y. Sung, J.W. Leung and E.A. Shaffer et al., Ascending infection of the biliary tract after surgical sphincterotomy and biliary stenting, J Gastroenterol Hepatol 7 (1992), pp. 240–245. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (51)
48 J.C. Pereira-Lima, R. Jakobs and U.H. Winter et al., Long-term results (7 to 10 years) of endoscopic papillotomy for choledocholithiasis. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for the recurrence of biliary symptoms, Gastrointest Endosc 48 (1998), pp. 457–464. Abstract | Article | PDF (89 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (75)
49 S. Ikeda, M. Tanaka and S. Matsumoto et al., Endoscopic sphincterotomy: long-term results in 408 patients with complete follow-up, Endoscopy 20 (1988), pp. 13–17. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (56)
50 D.I. Kim, M.H. Kim and S.K. Lee et al., Risk factors for recurrence of primary bile duct stones after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy, Gastrointest Endosc 54 (2001), pp. 42–48. Article | PDF (82 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24)
51 J.J. Bergman, S. van der Mey and E.A. Rauws et al., Long-term follow-up after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones in patients younger than 60 years of age, Gastrointest Endosc 44 (1996), pp. 643–649. Abstract | Article | PDF (827 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (112)
52 K.H. Lai, L.F. Lin and G.H. Lo et al., Does cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy prevent the recurrence of biliary complications?, Gastrointest Endosc 49 (1999), pp. 483–487. Abstract | Article | PDF (42 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35)
53 T. Ando, T. Tsuyuguchi and T. Okugawa et al., Risk factors for recurrent bile duct stones after endoscopic papillotomy, Gut 52 (2003), pp. 116–121. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)
54 G. Costamagna, A. Tringali and S.K. Shah et al., Long-term follow-up of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis, and risk factors for recurrence, Endoscopy 34 (2002), pp. 273–279. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (45)
55 E. Seifert, Long-term follow-up after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), Endoscopy 20 (1988) (supplement 1), pp. 232–235. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (42)
56 K.H. Lai, N.J. Peng and G.H. Lo et al., Prediction of recurrent choledocholithiasis by quantitative cholescintigraphy in patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy, Gut 41 (1997), pp. 399–403. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (21)
57 W.W. Ng, K.H. Lai and R.S. Liu et al., Biliary motility following endoscopic sphincterotomy for recurrent common bile duct stones, Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 56 (1995), pp. 159–165. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)
58 J.W. Leung, J.Y. Sung and J.W. Costerton, Bacteriological and electron microscopy examination of brown pigment stones, J Clin Microbiol 27 (1989), pp. 915–921. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)
59 M. Sugiyama, Y. Suzuki and N. Abe et al., Endoscopic retreatment of recurrent choledocholithiasis after sphincterotomy, Gut 53 (2004), pp. 1856–1859. Full Text via CrossRef
60 S. Sultan and J. Baillie, Recurrent bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy 1, Gut 53 (2004), pp. 1725–1727. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)
61 K.H. Lai, G.H. Lo and C.K. Lin et al., Do patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis after endoscopic sphincterotomy benefit from regular follow-up?, Gastrointest Endosc 55 (2002), pp. 523–526. Abstract | PDF (52 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)
62 D.J. Geenen, J.E. Geenen and F.M. Jafri et al., The role of surveillance endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in preventing episodic cholangitis in patients with recurrent common bile duct stones, Endoscopy 30 (1998), pp. 18–20. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)
*63 R.H. Hawes, P.B. Cotton and A.G. Vallon, Follow-up 6 to 11 years after duodenoscopic sphincterotomy for stones in patients with prior cholecystectomy, Gastroenterology 98 (1990), pp. 1008–1012. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (104)
64 F. Prat, N.A. Malak and G. Pelletier et al., Biliary symptoms and complications more than 8 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis, Gastroenterology 110 (1996), pp. 894–899. Abstract | PDF (80 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (81)
65 M.D. Apstein and M.C. Carey, Pathogenesis of cholesterol gallstones: a parsimonious hypothesis, Eur J Clin Invest 26 (1996), pp. 343–352. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (73)
66 J.J. Smit, A.H. Schinkel and R.P. Oude Elferink et al., Homozygous disruption of the murine mdr2 P-glycoprotein gene leads to a complete absence of phospholipid from bile and to liver disease, Cell 75 (1993), pp. 451–462. Abstract | Article | PDF (10874 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (779)
67 M. Fracchia, S. Pellegrino and P. Secreto et al., Biliary lipid composition in cholesterol microlithiasis, Gut 48 (2001), pp. 702–706. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)
*68 O. Rosmorduc, B. Hermelin and R. Poupon, MDR3 gene defect in adults with symptomatic intrahepatic and gallbladder cholesterol cholelithiasis, Gastroenterology 120 (2001), pp. 1459–1467. Abstract | PDF (2149 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (128)
69 O. Rosmorduc, B. Hermelin and P.Y. Boelle et al., ABCB4 gene mutation-associated cholelithiasis in adults, Gastroenterology 125 (2003), pp. 452–459. Article | PDF (253 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (83)
70 K. Uchiyama, H. Onishi and M. Tani et al., Long-term prognosis after treatment of patients with choledocholithiasis, Ann Surg 238 (2003), pp. 97–102. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)
71 D.G. Maxton, D.E. Tweedle and D.F. Martin, Retained common bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy: temporary and longterm treatment with biliary stenting, Gut 36 (1995), pp. 446–449. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (42)
72 J.J. Bergman, E.A. Rauws and J.G. Tijssen et al., Biliary endoprostheses in elderly patients with endoscopically irretrievable common bile duct stones: report on 117 patients, Gastrointest Endosc 42 (1995), pp. 195–201. Abstract | Article | PDF (1225 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (77)
*73 E. Roda, F. Bazzoli and A.M. Labate et al., Ursodeoxycholic acid vs. chenodeoxycholic acid as cholesterol gallstone-dissolving agents: a comparative randomized study, Hepatology 2 (1982), pp. 804–810. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (20)
  相似文献   
100.
BACKGROUND: Viral cold is thought to be the major contributing factor in the pathogenesis of sinusitis, as it causes ostiomeatal obstruction. The aim was to evaluate whether paranasal sinus functioning during viral colds is similar in subjects with and without allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Forty-eight volunteers were examined during an early (2-4 days) natural cold and again 3 weeks later. The examinations included computed tomography (CT) scans, nasal mucosal biopsies, and viral and bacterial specimens. Subjects with positive skin prick tests and persistent or intermittent rhinitis were considered to have allergic immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated rhinitis. In addition, specific IgE antibodies to staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB) were measured. RESULTS: Nine subjects (19%) had allergic rhinitis. The allergic subjects were significantly more often IgE sensitized to SEB than the nonallergic subjects (33%vs 3%, P = 0.02). Viral etiology of the cold was identified in 32 (67%) subjects. The subjects with allergic rhinitis had significantly higher CT scores compared with nonallergic subjects during the colds (median (range) scores 16 (6-22) vs 6 (0-17), P = 0.004). In both groups, the median scores declined markedly during convalescence, but the difference remained significant (P = 0.009). Among the allergic subjects, those who were IgE sensitized to SEB tended to have the highest CT scores [median (range) 16 (16-22)]. Total serum IgE and the nasal subepithelial eosinophil counts correlated with the CT scores during the cold (rs = 0.38, P = 0.008 and rs = 0.46, P = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with allergic IgE-mediated rhinitis had more severe paranasal sinus changes in CT scans than nonallergic subjects during viral colds. These changes indicate impaired sinus functioning and may increase the risk of bacterial sinusitis.  相似文献   
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号