falan42/nurse_detection huggingface dataset:
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 7 

PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS:,  Positive peptic ulcer disease.,POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS:,  Gastritis.,PROCEDURE PERFORMED: , Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with photography and biopsy.,GROSS FINDINGS:,  The patient had a history of peptic ulcer disease, epigastric abdominal pain x2 months, being evaluated at this time for ulcer disease.,Upon endoscopy, gastroesophageal junction was at 40 cm, no esophageal tumor, varices, strictures, masses, or no reflux esophagitis was noted.  Examination of the stomach reveals mild inflammation of the antrum of the stomach, no ulcers, erosions, tumors, or masses.  The profundus and the cardia of the stomach were unremarkable.  The pylorus was concentric.  The duodenal bulb and sweep with no inflammation, tumors, or masses.,OPERATIVE PROCEDURE: , The patient taken to the Endoscopy Suite, prepped and draped in the left lateral decubitus position.  She was given IV sedation using Demerol and Versed.  Olympus videoscope was inserted in the hypopharynx, upon deglutition passed into the esophagus.  Using air insufflation, the scope was advanced down through the esophagus into the stomach along the greater curvature of the stomach to the pylorus to the duodenal bulb and sweep.  The above gross findings noted.  The panendoscope was withdrawn back from the stomach, deflected upon itself.  The lesser curve fundus and cardiac were well visualized.  Upon examination of these areas, panendoscope was returned to midline.  Photographs and biopsies were obtained of the antrum of the stomach.  Air was aspirated from the stomach and panendoscope was slowly withdrawn carefully examining the lumen of the bowel.,Photographs and biopsies were obtained as appropriate.  The patient is sent to recovery room in stable condition.gastroenterology, antrum, esophageal tumor, varices, strictures, masses, duodenal bulb, peptic ulcer, duodenal, esophagus, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, panendoscope, peptic, inflammation, ulcer, disease, stomach
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 6 

PROCEDURE IN DETAIL: , Following premedication with Vistaril 50 mg and Atropine 0.4 mg IM, the patient received Versed 5.0 mg intravenously after Cetacaine spray to the posterior palate.  The Olympus video gastroscope was then introduced into the upper esophagus and passed by direct vision to the descending duodenum.  The upper, mid and lower portions of the esophagus; the lesser and greater curves of the stomach; anterior and posterior walls; body and antrum; pylorus; duodenal bulb; and duodenum were all normal.  No evidence of friability, ulceration or tumor mass was encountered.  The instrument was withdrawn to the antrum, and biopsies taken for CLO testing, and then the instrument removed.gastroenterology, cetacaine, pylorus, antrum, duodenum, upper esophagus, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, descending, esophagusNOTE,: Thesetranscribed medical transcription sample reports and examples are provided by various users andare for reference purpose only. MTHelpLine does not certify accuracy and quality of sample reports.These transcribed medical transcription sample reports may include some uncommon or unusual formats;this would be due to the preference of the dictating physician. All names and dates have beenchanged (or removed) to keep confidentiality. Any resemblance of any type of name or date orplace or anything else to real world is purely incidental.,
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 8 

PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS:, Chronic abdominal pain and heme positive stool.,POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES:,1.  Antral gastritis.,2.  Duodenal polyp.,PROCEDURE PERFORMED:,  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with photos and antral biopsy.,ANESTHESIA: , Demerol and Versed.,DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE: , Consent was obtained after all risks and benefits were described.  The patient was brought back into the Endoscopy Suite.  The aforementioned anesthesia was given.  Once the patient was properly anesthetized, bite block was placed in the patient's mouth.  Then, the patient was given the aforementioned anesthesia.  Once he was properly anesthetized, the endoscope was placed in the patient's mouth that was brought down to the cricopharyngeus muscle into the esophagus and from the esophagus to his stomach.  The air was insufflated down.  The scope was passed down to the level of the antrum where there was some evidence of gastritis seen.  The scope was passed into the duodenum and then duodenal sweep where there was a polyp seen.  The scope was pulled back into the stomach in order to flex upon itself and straightened out.  Biopsies were taken for CLO and histology of the antrum.  The scope was pulled back.  The junction was visualized.  No other masses or lesions were seen.  The scope was removed.  The patient tolerated the procedure well.  We will recommend the patient be on some type of a H2 blocker.  Further recommendations to follow.gastroenterology, endoscopy, gastritis, clo, histology, antrum, heme positive stool, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, duodenal, polyp, antral,
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 5 

MEDICATIONS:,1.  Versed intravenously.,2.  Demerol intravenously.,DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE: , After informed consent, the patient was placed in the left lateral decubitus position and Cetacaine spray was applied to the posterior pharynx.  The patient was sedated with the above medications.  The Olympus video panendoscope was advanced under direct vision into the esophagus.  The esophagus was normal in appearance and configuration.  The gastroesophageal junction was normal.  The scope was advanced into the stomach, where the fundic pool was aspirated and the stomach was insufflated with air.  The gastric mucosa appeared normal.  The pylorus was normal.  The scope was advanced through the pylorus into the duodenal bulb, which was normal, then into the second part of the duodenum, which was normal as well.  The scope was pulled back into the stomach.  Retroflexed view showed a normal incisura, lesser curvature, cardia and fundus.  The scope was straightened out, the air removed and the scope withdrawn.  The patient tolerated the procedure well.  There were no apparent complications.,gastroenterology, duodenal bulb, gastric mucosa, olympus video, video panendoscope, gastroesophageal junction, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, gastroesophageal, pylorus, stomach, esophagus, scopeNOTE
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 12 

PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES:,1.  Gastroesophageal reflux disease.,2.  Hiatal hernia.,POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES:,1.  Gastroesophageal reflux disease.,2.  Hiatal hernia.,3.  Enterogastritis.,PROCEDURE PERFORMED:  ,Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, photography, and biopsy.,GROSS FINDINGS: , The patient has a history of epigastric abdominal pain, persistent in nature.  She has a history of severe gastroesophageal reflux disease, takes Pepcid frequently.  She has had a history of hiatal hernia.  She is being evaluated at this time for disease process.  She does not have much response from Protonix.,Upon endoscopy, the gastroesophageal junction is approximately 40 cm.  There appeared to be some inflammation at the gastroesophageal junction and a small 1 cm to 2 cm hiatal hernia.  There is no advancement of the gastric mucosa up into the lower one-third of the esophagus.  However there appeared to be inflammation as stated previously in the gastroesophageal junction.  There was some mild inflammation at the antrum of the stomach.  The fundus of the stomach was within normal limits.  The cardia showed some laxity to the lower esophageal sphincter.  The pylorus is concentric.  The duodenal bulb and sweep are within normal limits.  No ulcers or erosions.,OPERATIVE PROCEDURE: , The patient is taken to the Endoscopy Suite, prepped and draped in the left lateral decubitus position.  The patient was given IV sedation using Demerol and Versed.  Olympus videoscope was inserted into the hypopharynx and upon deglutition passed into the esophagus.  Using air insufflation, panendoscope was advanced down the esophagus into the stomach along the greater curvature of the stomach through the pylorus into the duodenal bulb and sweep and the above gross findings were noted.  Panendoscope was slowly withdrawn carefully examining the lumen of the bowel.  Photographs were taken with the pathology present.  Biopsy was obtained of the antrum of the stomach and also CLO test.  The biopsy is also obtained of the gastroesophageal junction at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o' clock positions to rule out occult Barrett's esophagitis.  Air was aspirated from the stomach and the panendoscope was removed.  The patient sent to recovery room in stable condition.gastroenterology, biopsy, gastroesophageal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux disease, duodenal bulb, gastroesophageal junction, hiatal hernia, enterogastritis, endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, gastroesophageal,
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 2 

PROCEDURE:,  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy.,REASON FOR PROCEDURE:,  The child with history of irritability and diarrhea with gastroesophageal reflux.  Rule out reflux esophagitis, allergic enteritis, and ulcer disease, as well as celiac disease.  He has been on Prevacid 7.5 mg p.o. b.i.d. with suboptimal control of this irritability.,Consent history and physical examinations were performed.  The procedure, indications, alternatives available, and complications i.e. bleeding, perforation, infection, adverse medication reactions, possible need for blood transfusion, and surgery associated complication occur were discussed with the mother who understood and indicated this.  Opportunity for questions was provided and informed consent was obtained.,MEDICATIONS:  ,General anesthesia.,INSTRUMENT: , Olympus GIF-XQ 160.,COMPLICATIONS: , None.,ESTIMATED BLOOD LOSS:,  Less than 5 mL.,FINDINGS: , With the patient in the supine position intubated under general anesthesia, the endoscope was inserted without difficulty into the hypopharynx.  The proximal, mid, and distal esophagus had normal mucosal coloration and vascular pattern.  Lower esophageal sphincter appeared normal and was located at 25 cm from the central incisors.  A Z-line was identified within the lower esophageal sphincter.  The endoscope was advanced into the stomach, which was distended with excess air.  The rugal folds flattened completely.  The gastric mucosa was entirely normal.  No hiatal hernia was seen and the pyloric valve appeared normal.  The endoscope was advanced into first, second, and third portion of the duodenum, which had normal mucosal coloration and fold pattern.  Ampule of Vater was identified and found to be normal.  Biopsies were obtained x2 in the second portion of duodenum, antrum, and distal esophagus at 22 cm from the central incisors for histology.  Additional two antral biopsies were obtained for CLO testing.  Excess air was evacuated from the stomach.  The scope was removed from the patient who tolerated the procedure well.  The patient was taken to recovery room in satisfactory condition.,IMPRESSION:,  Normal esophagus, stomach, and duodenum.,PLAN:,  Histologic evaluation and CLO testing.  Continue Prevacid 7.5 mg p.o. b.i.d.  I will contact the parents next week with biopsy results and further management plans will be discussed at that time.gastroenterology, olympus gif-xq 160, diarrhea, gastroesophageal, esophagitis, reflux, clo testing, esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy, endoscope, esophagus, stomach, duodenum, esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 13 

PROCEDURE PERFORMED: , Esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed in the emergency department.,INDICATION: , Melena, acute upper GI bleed, anemia, and history of cirrhosis and varices.,FINAL IMPRESSION,1.  Scope passage massive liquid in stomach with some fresh blood near the fundus, unable to identify source due to gastric contents.,2.  Endoscopy following erythromycin demonstrated grade I esophageal varices.  No stigmata of active bleeding.  Small amount of fresh blood within the hiatal hernia.  No definite source of bleeding seen.,PLAN,1.  Repeat EGD tomorrow morning following aggressive resuscitation and transfusion.,2.  Proton-pump inhibitor drip.,3.  Octreotide drip.,4.  ICU bed.,PROCEDURE DETAILS:  ,Prior to the procedure, physical exam was stable.  During the procedure, vital signs remained within normal limits.  Prior to sedation, informed consent was obtained.  Risks, benefits, and alternatives including, but not limited to risk of bleeding, infection, perforation, adverse reaction to medication, failure to identify pathology, pancreatitis, and death explained to the patient and his wife, who accepted all risks.  The patient was prepped in the left lateral position.  IV sedation was given to a total of fentanyl 100 mcg and midazolam 4 mg for the initial EGD.  An additional 50 mcg of fentanyl and 2 mg of midazolam were given following erythromycin.  Scope tip of the Olympus gastroscope was passed into the esophagus.  Proximal, middle, and distal thirds of the esophagus were well visualized.  There was fresh blood in the esophagus, which was washed thoroughly, but no source was seen.  No evidence of varices was seen.  The stomach was entered.  The stomach was filled with very large clot and fresh blood and liquid, which could not be suctioned due to the clot burden.  There was a small amount of bright red blood near the fundus, but a source could not be identified due to the clot burden.  Because of this, the gastroscope was withdrawn.  The patient was given 250 mg of erythromycin in the Emergency Department and 30 minutes later, the scope was repassed.  On the second look, the esophagus was cleared.  The liquid gastric contents were cleared.  There was still a moderate amount of clot burden in the stomach, but no active bleeding was seen.  There was a small grade I esophageal varices, but no stigmata of bleed.  There was also a small amount of fresh blood within the hiatal hernia, but no source of bleeding was identified.  The patient was hemodynamically stable; therefore, a decision was made for a second look in the morning.  The scope was withdrawn and air was suctioned.  The patient tolerated the procedure well and was sent to recovery without immediate complications.gastroenterology, gi bleed, anemia, cirrhosis, stomach, fundus, hiatal hernia, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, erythromycin, varices, esophagus,
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 11 

PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS:,  Recurrent right upper quadrant pain with failure of antacid medical therapy.,POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: , Normal esophageal gastroduodenoscopy.,PROCEDURE PERFORMED:,  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with bile aspirate.,ANESTHESIA: , IV Demerol and Versed in titrated fashion.,INDICATIONS: , This 41-year-old female presents to surgical office with history of recurrent right upper quadrant abdominal pain.  Despite antacid therapy, the patient's pain has continued.  Additional findings were concerning with possibility of a biliary etiology.  The patient was explained the risks and benefits of an EGD as well as a Meltzer-Lyon test where upon bile aspiration was performed.  The patient agreed to the procedure and informed consent was obtained.,GROSS FINDINGS: , No evidence of neoplasia, mucosal change, or ulcer on examination.  Aspiration of the bile was done after the administration of 3 mcg of Kinevac.,PROCEDURE DETAILS: , The patient was placed in the supine position.  After appropriate anesthesia was obtained, an Olympus gastroscope inserted from the oropharynx through the second portion of duodenum.  Prior to this, 3 mcg of IV Kinevac was given to the patient to aid with the stimulation of bile.  At this time, the patient as well complained of epigastric discomfort and nausea.  This pain was similar to her previous pain.,Bile was aspirated with a trap to enable the collection of the fluid.  This fluid was then sent to lab for evaluation for crystals.  Next, photodocumentation obtained and retraction of the gastroscope through the antrum revealed no other evidence of disease, retroflexion revealed no evidence of hiatal hernia or other mass and after straightening the scope and aspiration ________, gastroscope was retracted.  The gastroesophageal junction was noted at 20 cm.  No other evidence of disease was appreciated here.  Retraction of the gastroscope backed through the esophagus, off the oropharynx, removed from the patient.  The patient tolerated the procedure well.  We will await evaluation of bile aspirate.gastroenterology, bile aspirate, esophageal, gastroduodenoscopy, kinevac, oropharynx, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, gastroscope
ERCP 

PROCEDURE:, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with brush cytology and biopsy.,INDICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE:, Patient with a history of chronic abdominal pain and CT showing evidence of chronic pancreatitis, with a recent upper endoscopy showing an abnormal-appearing ampulla.,MEDICATIONS:, General anesthesia.,The risks of the procedure were made aware to the patient and consisted of medication reaction, bleeding, perforation, aspiration, and post ERCP pancreatitis.,DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE: ,After informed consent and appropriate sedation, the duodenoscope was inserted into the oropharynx, down the esophagus, and into the stomach. The scope was then advanced through the pylorus to the ampulla. The ampulla had a markedly abnormal appearance, as it was enlarged and very prominent. It extended outward with an almost polypoid shape. It had what appeared to be adenomatous-appearing mucosa on the tip. There also was ulceration noted on the tip of this ampulla. The biliary and pancreatic orifices were identified. This was located not at the tip of the ampulla, but rather more towards the base. Cannulation was performed with a Wilson-Cooke TriTome sphincterotome with easy cannulation of the biliary tree. The common bile duct was mildly dilated, measuring approximately 12 mm. The intrahepatic ducts were minimally dilated. There were no filling defects identified. There was felt to be a possible stricture within the distal common bile duct, but this likely represented an anatomic variant given the abnormal shape of the ampulla. The patient has no evidence of obstruction based on lab work and clinically. Nevertheless, it was decided to proceed with brush cytology of this segment. This was done without any complications. There was adequate drainage of the biliary tree noted throughout the procedure. Multiple efforts were made to access the pancreatic ductal anatomy; however, because of the shape of the ampulla, this was unsuccessful. Efforts were made to proceed in a long scope position, but still were unsuccessful. Next, biopsies were obtained of the ampulla away from the biliary orifice. Four biopsies were taken. There was some minor oozing which had ceased by the end of the procedure. The stomach was then decompressed and the endoscope was withdrawn.,FINDINGS:,1. Abnormal papilla with bulging, polypoid appearance, and looks adenomatous with ulceration on the tip; biopsies taken.,2. Cholangiogram reveals mildly dilated common bile duct measuring 12 mm and possible distal CBD stricture, although I think this is likely an anatomic variant; brush cytology obtained.,3. Unable to access the pancreatic duct.,RECOMMENDATIONS:,1. NPO except ice chips today.,2. Will proceed with MRCP to better delineate pancreatic ductal anatomy.,3. Follow up biopsies and cytology.gastroenterology, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, biopsy, brush cytology, cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, endoscopy, duodenoscope, wilson-cooke tritome, ampulla, common bile duct, ercp, endoscopic, biliary, pancreatic, duct, biopsies, cytology
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy - 1 

PROCEDURE: , Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy.,PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: , A 1-year-10-month-old with a history of dysphagia to solids.  The procedure was done to rule out organic disease.,POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES: , Loose lower esophageal sphincter and duodenal ulcers.,CONSENT: , The consent is signed.,MEDICATIONS:  ,The procedure was done under general anesthesia given by Dr. Marino Fernandez.,COMPLICATIONS:,  None.,PROCEDURE IN DETAIL:,  A history and physical examination were performed, and the procedure, indications, potential complications including bleeding, perforation, the need for surgery, infection, adverse medical reaction, risks, benefits, and alternatives available were explained to the parents, who stated good understanding and consented to go ahead with the procedure.  The opportunity for questions was provided, and informed consent was obtained.  Once the consent was obtained, the patient was sedated with IV medications and intubated by Dr. Fernandez and placed in the supine position.  Then, the tip of the XP-160 videoscope was introduced into the oropharynx, and under direct visualization, we could advance the endoscope into the upper, mid, and lower esophagus.  We did not find any strictures in the upper esophagus, but the patient had the lower esophageal sphincter totally loose.  Then the tip of the endoscope was advanced down into the stomach and guided into the pylorus, and then into the first portion of the duodenum.  We noticed that the patient had several ulcers in the first portion of the duodenum.  Then the tip of the endoscope was advanced down into the second portion of the duodenum, one biopsy was taken there, and then, the tip of the endoscope was brought back to the first portion, and two biopsies were taken there.  Then, the tip of the endoscope was brought back to the antrum, where two biopsies were taken, and one biopsy for CLOtest.  By retroflexed view, at the level of the body of the stomach, I could see that the patient had the lower esophageal sphincter loose.  Finally, the endoscope was unflexed and was brought back to the lower esophagus, where two biopsies were taken.  At the end, air was suctioned from the stomach, and the endoscope was removed out of the patient's mouth.  The patient tolerated the procedure well with no complications.,FINAL IMPRESSION:  ,1.  Duodenal ulcers.,2.  Loose lower esophageal sphincter.,PLAN:,1.  To start omeprazole 20 mg a day.,2.  To review the biopsies.,3.  To return the patient back to clinic in 1 to 2 weeks.gastroenterology, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, esophageal, biopsies, endoscope
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy 

PROCEDURE:, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy and snare polypectomy.,INDICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE:, Iron-deficiency anemia.,MEDICATIONS:, MAC.,The risks of the procedure were made aware to the patient and consisted of medication reaction, bleeding, perforation, and aspiration.,PROCEDURE:, After informed consent and appropriate sedation, the upper endoscope was inserted into the oropharynx down into the stomach and beyond the pylorus and the second portion of the duodenum. The duodenal mucosa was completely normal. The pylorus was normal. In the stomach, there was evidence of diffuse atrophic-appearing nodular gastritis. Multiple biopsies were obtained. There also was a 1.5-cm adenomatous appearing polyp along the greater curvature at the junction of the body and antrum. There was mild ulceration on the tip of this polyp. It was decided to remove the polyp via snare polypectomy. Retroflexion was performed, and this revealed a small hiatal hernia in the distal esophagus. The Z-line was identified and was unremarkable. The esophageal mucosa was normal.,FINDINGS:,1. Hiatal hernia.,2. Diffuse nodular and atrophic appearing gastritis, biopsies taken.,3. A 1.5-cm polyp with ulceration along the greater curvature, removed.,RECOMMENDATIONS:,1. Follow up biopsies.,2. Continue PPI.,3. Hold Lovenox for 5 days.,4. Place SCDs.gastroenterology, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, iron-deficiency, iron-deficiency anemia, anemia, biopsy, endoscope, esophageal mucosa, esophagus, hiatal hernia, polypectomy, snare polypectomy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy, iron deficiency anemia,