ライフサイエンスコーパス: laparoscopic

1 with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic.

2 Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were m

3 52 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD (543 laparoscopic, 258 robot-assisted, 151 hybrid) in 26 cent

4 ical treatment modality (65.4%), followed by laparoscopic (31.2%) and robotic surgeries (3.4%).

5 ality between HSHs and LSHs for any advanced laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

6 near-infrared fluorophores add value during laparoscopic abdominopelvic surgeries and could potentia

7 as the efficacy study in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominopelvic surgery.

8 Although laparoscopic adhesiolysis for adhesive small bowel obstr

9 Laparoscopic adhesiolysis provides quicker recovery in s

10 We aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic adhesiolysis was a superior treatment for a

11 nservative management to have either open or laparoscopic adhesiolysis.

12 her laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) were incl

13 c Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

14 s invasive approaches like partial, mini- or laparoscopic ALPPS, mostly aiming at minimizing the exte

15 readmission occurred in 9 patients, 7 (8.3%) laparoscopic and 2 (4.6%) robotic; p = 0.718.

16 The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patie

17 ensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subg

18 he perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liv

19 In this randomized trial of laparoscopic and open liver surgery, no difference in su

20 issions directly related to adhesions in the laparoscopic and open surgery cohorts at 5 years.

21 re was no difference in suicide risk between laparoscopic and open surgical approach.

22 rence in postoperative morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approach.

23 The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoper

24 Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were included in the

25 MIPD, including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, has continued to ga

26 Laparoscopic and robotic colectomy are more cost-effecti

27 ee main surgical treatment modalities (open, laparoscopic and robotic).

28 was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery

29 n was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic.

30 ported as median and interquartile range for laparoscopic and robotic: 1.0 day (1.0-3.0) and 2.0 days

31 were initially treated by appendectomy (98% laparoscopic), and median hospital stay was 1 (1-2) day.

32 s and quality-adjusted time between robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy.

33 d colectomy procedures compared across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches showed significant

34 Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy.

35 distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.

36 perative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.

37 re and including 2655 patients who underwent laparoscopic antireflux surgery according to the Swedish

38 Primary laparoscopic antireflux surgery due to gastroesophageal

39 Laparoscopic antireflux surgery was associated with a re

40 Both these patients had uncomplicated laparoscopic appendectomies for histologically confirmed

41 Data Repository who underwent uncomplicated laparoscopic appendectomy (2006-2014).

42 n = 370) or urgent (<=12 hours of admission) laparoscopic appendectomy (surgery group, n = 698).

43 local anesthetic (IPLA) on pain after acute laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

44 roidectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendectomy in either the inpatient or amb

45 between any of the utilization measures for laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy.

46 This randomized controlled trial in acute laparoscopic appendectomy recruited children aged 8 to 1

47 Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed and diagnosed as

48 ates among ambulatory versus inpatient-based laparoscopic appendectomy were comparable (OR 0.63, 95%

49 ith appendicitis receive CT imaging, undergo laparoscopic appendectomy, and stay in the hospital for

50 controlled trial to investigate this after a laparoscopic appendicectomy.

51 o determine the either an open approach or a laparoscopic approach (including procedures converted to

52 However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age

53 sanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) with laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer.

54 laparoscopy in living donor hepatectomy, the laparoscopic approach has never been reported in liver t

55 The use of laparoscopic approach in the emergency resection of colo

56 ximum oncologic benefit.The relevance of the laparoscopic approach must be assessed in relation to th

57 g questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly p

58 It is expected that a wider adoption of a laparoscopic approach to liver surgery will be seen in t

59 Patients with an initially laparoscopic approach were classed as LS even if convert

60 rect institutional cost seem in favor of the laparoscopic approach.

61 ase might be due to challenges inherent with laparoscopic approaches in patients with distended small

62 more and achieved lower QOL than robotic and laparoscopic approaches.

63 ged as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches.

64 Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not

65 s obtained at standard surgical debulking or laparoscopic biopsy.

66 Eighty-four laparoscopic cases (65.6%) and 44 robotic assisted (34.4

67 community centers combined to perform 80% of laparoscopic cases and 83% of robotic cases.

68 (OR 0.28, 95% CI, 0.20-0.40; P < 0.001), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OR 0.37, 95% CI, 0.32-0.43

69 ons (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67

70 The first patient underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder empyema and

71 entified 19,213 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2012 to 2015 using dat

72 a single surgeon's database containing 5739 laparoscopic cholecystectomy over 28 years and analysed.

73 Analyses were performed for laparoscopic cholecystectomy performances alone and for

74 Episode payments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy vary widely across surgeons

75 One thousand fifty-one laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos were annotated by AI

76 nd nontechnical performance standard for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy, (2) assess the classificat

77 For laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 23 ratings are needed to a

78 o evaluate complete episode expenditures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a common and lower-risk op

79 Adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and inguinal

80 with risk factors and with widespread use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hepatobiliary malignancies

81 Surgeries included: laparoscopic cholecystectomy, open inguinal hernia repai

82 air, primary total or partial thyroidectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendecto

83 I is the most common serious complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

84 afety (CVS) and intraoperative events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

85 ompared to lean controls undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

86 ences in making entrustment decisions during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

87 corresponding median day of discharge were: laparoscopic colectomy (n = 152,575; median = 4), open c

88 patient characteristics, patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy (vs open) still had lower Medicar

89 median date in each of the operative groups: laparoscopic colectomy 6% versus 8%, open colectomy 11%

90 r, 2016, all patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic colectomy and meeting rigorous criteria for

91 In both models, laparoscopic colectomy was more frequently cost-effectiv

92 Lapco increased the rate of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and reduced morta

93 Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) deals

94 in primarily closed incision after open and laparoscopic-converted colorectal surgery.

95 3D laparoscopic display technique optimizes surgical perfor

96 The clinical pathway for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open (OD

97 Postoperative infection after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) confers significa

98 (CA) is an extremely rare complication after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

99 Introduction of minimal invasive, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has increased live kidney

100 Scholar using "chyle," "complications," and "laparoscopic donor nephrectomy" as keywords.

101 Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) is not a st

102 port the development and implementation of a laparoscopic, drop-in version of the MasSpec Pen device

103 e present case was successfully managed with laparoscopic endosuturing and has no recurrence at 6 mon

104 The laparoscopic era brought about a decline in the conventi

105 classified as TFI cases or controls based on laparoscopic examination.

106 Laparoscopic excision was done for all.

107 We measured data from 31 novices during laparoscopic exercises to extract features based on card

108 Surgery with laparoscopic fundoplication is an invasive treatment alt

109 lifestyle modification, PPI medication, and laparoscopic fundoplication.

110 performed for all patients who had undergone laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer at 3 teaching instit

111 Laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer is an advanced proce

112 rmance predicts major short-term outcomes in laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer.

113 stric bypass, open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic gastric band placement, or laparoscopic sle

114 device-related reoperations occurring after laparoscopic gastric band surgery as well as the associa

115 Danish patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass (BMI >35-50) from January 1,

116 men, 18 to 55 years, operated with a primary laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure from 2010 until 20

117 ion due to small bowel obstruction after the laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure.

118 d risk for small bowel obstruction following laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery (incidence rates 46.

119 eased risk for small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery during the second an

120 common and feared long-term complication to laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery that may be more com

121 trointestinal surgical hospital burden after laparoscopic gastric bypass.

122 echnical performance and patient outcomes in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

123 g the effectiveness of such interventions in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

124 n (also called an Ivor-Lewis procedure) with laparoscopic gastric mobilization and open right thoraco

125 nal study of 24 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic general surgery at a single center in the N

126 132 consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic general surgery at an academic hospital dur

127 detailed human factors analysis of elective laparoscopic general surgery cases, this study provided

128 study of factors affecting patient safety in laparoscopic general surgery.

129 study, 19 audio/video recordings of complex laparoscopic general surgical procedures were directly o

130 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [9

131 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the

132 ear recurrence-free survival were 30% in the laparoscopic group and 36% in the open group (between-gr

133 s of 5-year overall survival were 54% in the laparoscopic group and 55% in the open group (between-gr

134 Pneumatic dilation and laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM) are established trea

135 l abdominal hysterectomy compared with total laparoscopic hysterectomy resulted in equivalent disease

136 Total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorecto

137 tic anatomy and assess CVS criteria in still laparoscopic images.

138 Laparoscopic imaging was performed to detect the fluores

139 uitable for three-dimensional endoscopic and laparoscopic imaging, as was demonstrated on ex vivo por

140 r pelvic surgery, of whom 21 519 (29.8%) had laparoscopic index surgery and 50 751 (70.2%) had open s

141 holecystectomy, open inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, partial mastectomy

142 ally via a small incision with light-holding laparoscopic instruments either under direct, or endosco

143 d hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum.

144 the results of the MILOS operation with the laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh operation (IPOM)

145 Compared with laparoscopic IPOM incisional hernia operation, the MILOS

146 roscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part

147 cember 2016, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic LAR + TME in 6 Italian nonacademic hospital

148 To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic lavage and sigmoid resection in perforated

149 included 307 patients of whom 159 underwent laparoscopic lavage.

150 r the study period, 164 patients underwent a laparoscopic Linx implant and had a median follow-up of

151 t centers with significant expertise in both laparoscopic liver and pancreatic surgery.

152 TCA was induced by laparoscopic liver lobe resection combined with arterial

153 Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was initially indicat

154 5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection.

155 tases were randomly assigned to have open or laparoscopic liver resection.

156 Laparoscopic liver resections necessitate a long learnin

157 With specific training, "early adapting" laparoscopic liver surgeons are able to overcome the lea

158 espite the recent worldwide dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery, no high-level evidence suppo

159 ing donor liver transplantation and advanced laparoscopic liver surgery.

160 enitourinary (GU) dysfunction after elective laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection and total mes

161 Surgeons should approach laparoscopic lysis of adhesions with a higher level of a

162 iagnosed intraoperatively with an endoscopic-laparoscopic method, Collis-Nissen and stomach around st

163 fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001).

164 The increased risk of POPF in laparoscopic MIPD was associated with single-row pancrea

165 went laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy/laparoscopic myomectomy (LSH/LM), a surrogate indicator

166 tical banded gastroplasty, 49% each) and 98% laparoscopic (n = 162,969; 69.8% sleeve gastrectomy and

167 assigned them to receive surgical treatment (laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication), active medical trea

168 Laparoscopic operations have steadily increased.

169 During elective laparoscopic operations, frequent intraoperative errors

170 Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with ope

171 o had abdominal or pelvic surgery done using laparoscopic or open approaches between June 1, 2009, an

172 nducted of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing laparoscopic or open colectomy between January 1, 2010,

173 , incisional, or parastomal hernia following laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer.

174 study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between

175 Adults undergoing MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) or open rectal resections for s

176 ion extremely difficult to diagnose, being a laparoscopic or surgical diagnosis.

177 ps that received minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or video-assisted retroperitoneal debrideme

178 al dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pne

179 Procedural options included open abdominal, laparoscopic, or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

180 d an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-ter

181 Using cryopreserved semen, laparoscopic oviductal artificial insemination was perfo

182 d, physical demand, and effort, than open or laparoscopic (P < 0.05).

183 Two 30-day reoperations occurred, both laparoscopic; p = 0.545.

184 e Longitudinal Assessment and Realization of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery (LAELAPS-2) training pro

185 utcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD).

186 Laparoscopic patients had a shorter length of stay [medi

187 ic PD increased (2.5 to 4.2%; P < 0.001) and laparoscopic PD decreased (5.8% to 4.3%; P < 0.02).

188 Evaluation of vaginal microenvironment after laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty might play an impor

189 ses of patients with artificial vagina after laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty were included in th

190 After laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty, the artificial vag

191 cological features in patients who underwent laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty.

192 Vaginal dysbiosis is common after laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty.

193 Short outcomes from laparoscopic PPU repair appear equivalent to open repair

194 if appropriate, and adjusting endoscopic and laparoscopic practice (low CO2 pressures, evacuation thr

195 A medical student learning to perform a laparoscopic procedure or a recently paralyzed user of a

196 ndergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

197 All 5 consecutive donors completed a pure laparoscopic procedure.

198 More ERP than pre-ERP patients underwent laparoscopic procedures (45.3% vs. 32.4%, P = 0.02), had

199 In general, laparoscopic procedures have a lower risk of morbidity a

200 es (TMC), defined categories, and four index laparoscopic procedures was evaluated.

201 Outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic procedures were compared.

202 tional examination of open proctectomy (OP), laparoscopic proctectomy (LP), and robotic proctectomy (

203 ), open colectomy (n = 137,462; median = 7), laparoscopic proctectomy (n = 12,238; median = 5), open

204 6% versus 8%, open colectomy 11% versus 14%, laparoscopic proctectomy 13% versus 16%, open proctectom

205 val benefit associated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) compared to open radic

206 dred and thirty men treated consecutively by laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) between July 20

207 ic antigen [PSA] values after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [RARP]).

208 7 to March 2017 followed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

209 and 4.74 for global assessment score whereas laparoscopic rate increased from 44% to 66% and 40% to 5

210 assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by eithe

211 f the study was to determine the efficacy of laparoscopic rectal resection (Lap) versus open laparoto

212 device, and to report the results of 1-stage laparoscopic removal and fundoplication.

213 Laparoscopic removal of the Linx device can be safely pe

214 Laparoscopic repair at diagnosis was cost-effective comp

215 The choice between open and laparoscopic repair depends on surgical costs and postop

216 to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing laparoscopic resection and postoperative outcome accordi

217 Laparoscopic resection has developed as a commonly accep

218 nd secondary study endpoints may not support laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer as a routine sta

219 Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazar

220 Laparoscopic resection was noninferior compared with ope

221 After DS, more laparoscopic resections were performed (56.8% vs 9.2%, P

222 -guided radiofrequency ablation (CT-RFA) and laparoscopic RFA (L-RFA) have been used to treat intrahe

223 lly relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal i

224 Performance was adequate for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD and open p

225 Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had compar

226 has not yet been validated specifically for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD.

227 ed on a sample of 120 patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure, in whic

228 iagnosis of morbid obesity and who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, open Roux-en-Y ga

229 surgical skill and complication rates after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

230 oscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) compared to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) after failed

231 G) is performed almost as often in Europe as laparoscopic Roux-Y-Gastric Bypass (LRYGB).

232 dited deidentified video of a representative laparoscopic SG.

233 o assess the safety of revisional surgery to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) compared to laparo

234 Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) increases transpla

235 Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is performed almos

236 e diagnosis of diabetes who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic ad

237 AI algorithms to identify operative steps in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

238 o voluntarily submitted a video of a typical laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2015-2016.

239 All primary, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric by

240 Peer ratings for surgical skill varied for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy but did not have a signi

241 ass, laparoscopic gastric band placement, or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

242 For rectal cancer surgery (N=2328), all laparoscopic subgroups had significantly higher total ho

243 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%

244 Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparos

245 Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to e

246 tion were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second genera

247 Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more l

248 after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied w

249 We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial

250 d all-cause mortality of women who underwent laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy/laparoscopic myo

251 se in open surgeries, a 3.5 fold increase in laparoscopic surgeries, and a 41.3 fold increase in robo

252 study was to compare open surgery (OS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) for perforated peptic ulcer (P

253 nding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and balance these risks against the

254 nding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and propose mitigation measures to

255 emodynamic and physiological consequences of laparoscopic surgery as well as a defined operative plan

256 Laparoscopic surgery can be exhausting and frustrating,

257 16.0% [15.6-16.4]) of 21 519 patients in the laparoscopic surgery cohort were readmitted for disorder

258 Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with roboti

259 red with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic.

260 With further increases in the use of laparoscopic surgery expected in the future, the effect

261 trolled trials COLOR and COLOR II, comparing laparoscopic surgery for curable colon (COLOR) and recta

262 was higher after open surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for each procedure (RYGB 2.1% vs. 1

263 Based on long-term morbidity outcomes, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer could be consider

264 Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer did not differ si

265 Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been adopted

266 : Laparoscopic surgery has become an increasingly popular

267 However, compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery imposes greater ergonomic constrain

268 was to determine the effects of open versus laparoscopic surgery on the development of adhesive smal

269 Laparoscopic surgery reduces the incidence of adhesion-r

270 Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postopera

271 Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or near

272 Laparoscopic surgery was correlated to shorter operative

273 Lapco delegates had a 37.8% increase in laparoscopic surgery which was greater than non-Lapco su

274 The changes in the rate of post-Lapco laparoscopic surgery with the Lapco sign-off competency

275 However, for "first solo laparoscopic surgery" scenario, there was some indicatio

276 Of the 21 519 patients who had laparoscopic surgery, 359 (1.7% [95% CI 1.5-1.9]) were r

277 ers a reasonable alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery, in particular in donors with highe

278 We compared the rate of laparoscopic surgery, mortality and morbidity for colore

279 prevalence of MSDs among surgeons performing laparoscopic surgery, we performed a systematic review o

280 These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with va

281 eliably and objectively captured in advanced laparoscopic surgery.

282 with extensive experience in pancreatic and laparoscopic surgery.

283 ive period and thus negating the benefits of laparoscopic surgery.

284 ociated with better short-term outcomes over laparoscopic surgery.

285 of 280 patients were included in the trial (laparoscopic surgery: n = 133; open surgery: n = 147).

286 -4-IRDye 800CW could benefit open as well as laparoscopic surgical procedures for removal of insulino

287 To enter COLOR III, 2 unedited TaTME and 1 laparoscopic TME videos were submitted and assessed by 2

288 derwent hybrid liver transplantation by pure laparoscopic total hepatectomy and liver graft implantat

289 Case video and data from 2 laparoscopic total mesorectal excision randomized contro

290 scopic-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic transgastric debridement, and open transgas

291 l closure (PFC) versus bridged repair during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR).

292 bowel intervention was 53.5% versus 43.4% in laparoscopic versus open procedures (P < 0.0001).

293 dressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM.

294 RCTs) have evaluated the oncologic safety of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with

295 incisional, and parastomal hernia following laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

296 e overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery.

297 on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal

298 , wound classification), procedure type (eg, laparoscopic vs open, intestinal, foregut, hepatopancrea

299 Treatment allocation (laparoscopic vs robotic) did not predict major LARS.

300 The choice of operative strategy (open vs laparoscopic) was sensitive to cost and postoperative qu