ライフサイエンスコーパス: nerve-sparing

1 58.6% of unilateral, and 56.0% of bilateral nerve-sparing).

2 he procedure was nerve sparing (65.6% of non-nerve-sparing, 58.6% of unilateral, and 56.0% of bilater

3 aried according to whether the procedure was nerve sparing (65.6% of non-nerve-sparing, 58.6% of unil

4 Current trends towards nerve-sparing and focal cryoablation are also discussed.

5 ective suturing of dorsal venous complex and nerve sparing approach.

6 ntiation of intrafascial versus interfascial nerve-sparing approaches.

7 would not otherwise have undergone bilateral nerve-sparing by standard practice.

8 areful attention to technique, especially in nerve-sparing cystectomy and orthotopic cystoplasty may

9 The use of NeuroSAFE to guide nerve-sparing during RARP improves patient-reported IIEF

10 etection of positive surgical margins during nerve-sparing, increasing the likelihood of successful n

11 The technique of nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy should

12 Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, althou

13 g of pelvic anatomy to recognize the optimal nerve-sparing plane and technical finesse to minimize st

14 ection of the prostate away from the optimal nerve-sparing plane to maximally preserve nerve fibers w

15 ing cryodamage of the neurovascular bundles (nerve-sparing procedure), and focal ablation of a specif

16 l regions (73.8%) which were associated with nerve-sparing procedures (p = 0.012) while apical PSMs w

17 tectomy on sexual function were mitigated by nerve-sparing procedures.

18 reatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam rad

19 For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse ur

20 e functional anatomy approach, starting with nerve-sparing prostatectomy, assumes that quality-of-lif

21 tion of the cavernous nerve (CN) network for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using near-infrared

22 Among patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) EPIC-26 s

23 eal-time, functional imaging guidance during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

24 r to be less than reported in men who have a nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPL

25 oundaries of modified templates, a bilateral nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is t

26 ed from a pool of 322 patients who underwent nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy witho

27 and dynamic contrast-material enhanced) and nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, duri

28 oughout, but patients were informed of their nerve-sparing status after the operation.

29 aters annotated video clips of the bilateral nerve-sparing step using standardized tools for identify

30 al stage T2 or higher, and lack of bilateral nerve-sparing surgery were associated with a lower proba

31 For nerve-sparing surgery, though some proponents of laparos

32 ectile dysfunction or are not candidates for nerve-sparing surgery.

33 articularly after radical prostatectomy, and nerve-sparing surgical technique had little apparent ben

34 R imaging data changed the decision to use a nerve-sparing technique during RALP in 27% of patients i

35 in 17 of the 28 patients (61%) and to a non-nerve-sparing technique in 11 (39%).

36 ts (27%); the surgical plan was changed to a nerve-sparing technique in 17 of the 28 patients (61%) a

37 atients whose surgical plan was changed to a nerve-sparing technique, there were no positive margins

38 With advances in nerve-sparing techniques and the probability of disease

39 owever, refinement of tissue handling during nerve-sparing to minimize lateral displacement of the ne

40 Nerve-sparing was guided by a preoperative plan in the s