ライフサイエンスコーパス: open surgery

1 B was performed using linear staplers during open surgery.

2 n involves endo-urological interventions and open surgery.

3 ns by 11% (HR 0.89, 0.85-0.94) compared with open surgery.

4 performed with nearly identical standards to open surgery.

5 tive hypercapnia and acidosis, compared with open surgery.

6 ality rate was 6.6% with TEVAR and 8.0% with open surgery.

7 be lower after laparoscopic IPAA than after open surgery.

8 scular revascularization and lower extremity open surgery.

9 om environment during minimally invasive and open surgery.

10 perative arterial blood gases, compared with open surgery.

11 ients had laparoscopic surgery and 19.5% had open surgery.

12 ity, and lower cost than those obtained with open surgery.

13 and reported undergoing either a robotic or open surgery.

14 ns are fewer in laparoscopic surgery than in open surgery.

15 ermined using ultrasound imaging followed by open surgery.

16 f patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery.

17 threshold of 10-14 lymph nodes compared with open surgery.

18 r hospital stay and fewer complications than open surgery.

19 c aortic stenosis who are not candidates for open surgery.

20 n demonstrated to provide similar results of open surgery.

21 warm ischemia time, to levels comparable to open surgery.

22 er postoperative complications compared with open surgery.

23 omparable with those reported previously for open surgery.

24 outcome seem to accrue more slowly than for open surgery.

25 ng the same oncologic principles as those of open surgery.

26 re laparoscopy might provide advantages over open surgery.

27 rs equivalent long-term oncologic results to open surgery.

28 shown to duplicate the oncologic outcomes of open surgery.

29 d reinterventions and hospitalizations after open surgery.

30 overall preservation of immune function than open surgery.

31 TE is lower after laparoscopic compared with open surgery.

32 ognosis, especially those who have undergone open surgery.

33 acoscopic surgery compared with those having open surgery.

34 erwise would be considered too high risk for open surgery.

35 itial hospitalization after laparoscopic and open surgery.

36 h protracted recovery and attendant risks of open surgery.

37 and oncologic outcomes appear equivalent to open surgery.

38 cious, and may have particular benefits over open surgery.

39 ts underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery.

40 oscopic index surgery and 50 751 (70.2%) had open surgery.

41 There were no conversions to open surgery.

42 mparable, and, in some measures, superior to open surgery.

43 ssociated with conversion of laparoscopic to open surgery.

44 t its cure rates do not approximate those of open surgery.

45 ve perforations and only four conversions to open surgery.

46 ubset should be treated with arthroscopic or open surgery.

47 e after an endovascular procedure than after open surgery.

48 ad cytopathologic analysis, and 31 cases had open surgery.

49 which is best, and both attempt to eliminate open surgery.

50 There were three conversions to open surgery.

51 ts and compared with conventional data after open surgery.

52 %) underwent MIS and 5,766 (96.6%) underwent open surgery.

53 or patients undergoing minimally invasive vs open surgery.

54 er time to functional recovery compared with open surgery.

55 ; P<0.001), with a corresponding decrease in open surgery.

56 rgoing RDP, 75 (3.1%) required conversion to open surgery.

57 sted surgery to conventional laparoscopic or open surgery.

58 The tenth SLN was excised by open surgery.

59 ing of incisions with confined dissection in open surgery.

60 ngle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

61 Three patients required open surgery.

62 ) were less common with robotic surgery than open surgery.

63 aneurysm rupture are endovascular repair or open surgery.

64 palliated by timely endovascular therapy or open surgery.

65 e technique as there are no differences with open surgery.

66 d similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery.

67 however, one complication was reported after open surgery.

68 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery.

69 of race and insurance with use of MIS versus open surgery.

70 lity of resveratrol application suitable for open surgery.

71 g 23,274 patients, 39% underwent MIS and 61% open surgery.

72 ed with better outcomes and lower costs than open surgery.

73 riers could save between $328 and $680 after open surgery.

74 ity rate was 5.1% for MIPD versus 3.1% after open surgery.

75 ee and overall survival similar to those for open surgery.

76 ment of patients who are not eligible for an open surgery.

77 fficult and more expensive than traditional "open" surgery.

78 None of the cases required conversion to open surgery (0%).

79 over a 5-year period, were also higher after open surgery (0.64% vs. 0.29%, P < 0.001).

80 ents (84%) and were more frequent than after open surgery (10 of 21 patients [48%]; P=0.011).

81 Fifty-two patients underwent arthroscopy or open surgery 12 days to 5 months after MR arthrography.

82 laparoscopy, 12.28; 95% CI, 11.37 to 13.19 v open surgery, 12.05; 95% CI, 11.14 to 12.96; adjusted me

83 T-Cx total score were identified between the open surgery (129.3 [SD 18.8]) and minimally invasive su

84 Conversion to open surgery (14 vs. 5, p = 0.002) and complications (17

85 After open surgery, 187 (68.2%) of 274 patients went home and

86 ntly higher for endovascular repair than for open surgery ($20,716 vs $18,484; P <.001).

87 c and East North Central regions compared to open surgery (29.3% vs. 21.4%; 20.1% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.00

88 significantly lower after LGM, compared with open surgery (3.3% vs 5.7%, P = 0.005), as well as in-ho

89 There were 4 conversions to open surgery (3.7%), all due to bleeding.

90 ia), 107 were treated (65% endovascular, 30% open surgery, 5% amputation), 16 were pending treatment,

91 nt between groups; retching was higher after open surgery (56% vs. 6%; P = 0.003).

92 were higher for endovascular repair than for open surgery (6.74 vs 6.52 and 39,785 dollars vs 37,606

93 copy, 5; interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 9 v open surgery, 7; IQR, 5 to 11 days; P=.033).

94 al modalities, there was a 35.4% decrease in open surgeries, a 3.5 fold increase in laparoscopic surg

95 series, LVHR had a low rate of conversion to open surgery, a short hospital stay, a moderate complica

96 site infection rate by 70%-80% compared with open surgery across general abdominal surgical procedure

97 going robotic surgery vs 80 (IQR, 72-83) for open surgery (adjusted difference, 2.2 days [95% CI, 0.5

98 edural complications requiring conversion to open surgery among TA-TAVR patients, and the presence of

99 olar electrodes have become indispensable in open surgeries and have been the focus of extensive rese

100 st 5 years after surgery are $2350 following open surgery and $970 after laparoscopy.

101 re analyzed from 3468 patients who underwent open surgery and 3502 patients who underwent laparoscopi

102 r laparoscopy and standard care (LS), 17 for open surgery and fast track care (OFT), and 20 for open

103 Conversion rate to open surgery and mortality did not differ significantly

104 There were no emergency conversion to open surgery and neither were there postoperative explor

105 urgery and fast track care (OFT), and 20 for open surgery and standard care (OS).

106 n margin, 2 (9.1%) experienced conversion to open surgery, and 15 (68.2%) also developed SR.

107 ated medically, 1,706 patients who underwent open surgery, and 3,457 patients who underwent thoracic

108 692 did not have aneurysmal repair, 1917 had open surgery, and 451 had endovascular procedures.

109 sex, increasing age, increasing comorbidity, open surgery, and a provisional diagnosis of idiopathic

110 partial nephrectomy are still carried out by open surgery, and concerns continue about prolonged isch

111 t options that span conservative management, open surgery, and endovascular procedures.

112 mally invasive radical hysterectomy than for open surgery, and postoperative quality of life is simil

113 ompared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), open surgery, and resection before 2014 were associated

114 Exclusion criteria included scheduled open surgery, any antalgic World Health Organization lev

115 raoperative adverse events and conversion to open surgery are the strongest risk factors for serious

116 and only one patient required conversion to open surgery as a result of an unmanageable air leak.

117 troperitoneal surgery (step 2); If necessary open surgery as a third step.

118 Endovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients req

119 Endovenous ablation has replaced open surgery as the treatment of choice for truncal vari

120 chnique (RKT) versus patients performed with open surgery at all US centers including our own (open k

121 The Annotated Videos of Open Surgery (AVOS) data set includes 1997 videos from 2

122 for curable colon cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on long-term oncologic endpoints from

123 ease who are poor candidates for traditional open surgery because of severe comorbidity.

124 sts are innovating not only replacements for open surgeries, but entirely new therapies as well.

125 8 (4.3% [4.1-4.5]) of 50 751 patients in the open surgery cohort (p<0.0001).

126 18.2% [17.8-18.6]) of 50 751 patients in the open surgery cohort (p<0.005).

127 related to adhesions in the laparoscopic and open surgery cohorts at 5 years.

128 Compared with non-mesh open surgery (colposuspension), mesh procedures had a lo

129 Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and

130 Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic.

131 year incidence rate of aSBO was higher after open surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for each

132 The rate of use of open surgery decreased by half (60.1% in period 2 to 30.

133 ercutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy or open surgery depending on the size and location of the s

134 Although 5.2% of patients undergoing open surgery developed OSI (odds ratio = 1.82; 95% confi

135 LKT group, four cases required conversion to open surgery due to vascular complications and one for u

136 s), diabetes mellitus, preoperative abscess, open surgery, emergent operations, and prolonged operati

137 e and hospital revascularization experience, open surgery first was associated with a worse amputatio

138 ination of gamma-detection modalities and an open surgery fluorescence camera.

139 00002575), investigating laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer.

140 MRC-CLASICC trial (laparoscopic-assisted vs open surgery for colorectal cancer) included prospective

141 red to conventional laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for commonly performed pediatric urological

142 nd oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

143 roach is a safe and effective alternative to open surgery for IBD management.

144 rysms has been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for juxtarenal and pararenal abdominal aort

145 sted decompression may offer advantages over open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

146 randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer have reported long-term s

147 Laparoscopy was noninferior to open surgery for rectal cancer in terms of individual qu

148 the oncologic safety of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with conflicting results.

149 parastomal hernia following laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer.

150 astomal hernia following laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

151 odds of extended length of stay compared to open surgery for spinal nerve sheath tumor resection.

152 iority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not establishe

153 s a cost-effective alternative compared with open surgery for the elective repair of AAA.

154 roscopic surgery, occasionally combined with open surgery for the IVC control aspect of the procedure

155 Conversion rates to open surgery for the RFA and resection group were 2% ove

156 recurrence rates between video-assisted and open surgery for the treatment of recurrent pneumothorax

157 FEVAR has emerged as an alternative to open surgery for treating cAAA, but direct comparisons a

158 efore it can be offered as an alternative to open surgery for unilateral mesial temporal lobe epileps

159 ule, may be the procedure of choice, barring open surgery, for help in diagnosis of these conditions.

160 m 104 patients were randomly assigned to the open surgery group (n=51) or to the laparoscopy group (n

161 rgery group and in 234 patients (99%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -0.4% [95% CI, -1

162 rgery group and in 228 patients (97%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -3.7% [95% CI, -7

163 surgery group and 216 patients (92%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -5.4% [95% CI, -1

164 surgery group and 208 patients (89%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -7.0% [95% CI, -1

165 21 (43%) patients in the open surgery group and 16 (31%) patients in the laparosc

166 t analysis (244 [78%] of 312 patients in the open surgery group and 252 [79%] of 319 participants in

167 patients were enrolled; 312 assigned to the open surgery group and 319 assigned to the minimally inv

168 weeks after surgery (128.7 [SD 19.9] in the open surgery group vs 130.0 [19.8] in the minimally inva

169 he postoperative length of hospital stay for open surgery group was on average 1.3 days longer than t

170 stoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group).

171 toward more persistent fat stranding in the open surgery group.

172 ified intention-to-treat analyses (49 in the open surgery group; 51 in the laparoscopy group).

173 n the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-surgery group (39.0 percent vs. 33.4 percent; adjus

174 laparoscopic-surgery group and 83.6% in the open-surgery group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 9

175 laparoscopic-surgery group and 70.8% in the open-surgery group (difference, 4.0 percentage points; 9

176 rgery group had less pain initially than the open-surgery group on the day of surgery (difference in

177 he laparoscopic-surgery group and 345 in the open-surgery group).

178 by either laparoscopy (group L, n = 282) or open surgery (group O, n = 384), were compared.

179 to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively.

180 Conventional open surgery has a low death rate, but complications are

181 Open surgery has been partially supplanted by thoracic e

182 However, open surgery has demonstrated better success rates and s

183 covery provided by laparoscopy over standard open surgery have not been rigorously assessed.

184 f endovascular grafts compared with standard open surgery have not yet been fully defined.

185 t-term outcomes between these techniques and open surgery have shown equivalent results; however, sur

186 ce to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is l

187 metastases to undergo either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio.

188 lculated for endovascular repair relative to open surgery in a cohort of 70-year-old men with an AAA

189 for redo surgery should be considered for an open surgery in a high-volume center.

190 The high rates of open surgery in certain procedures highlight opportuniti

191 tal cancer did not differ significantly from open surgery in effects on 2-year recurrence or DFS and

192 procedures are potentially beneficial versus open surgery in elderly, very high-risk patients but tha

193 performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers.

194 port further evaluation as an alternative to open surgery in intermediate-risk patients.

195 rectomy is a well-established alternative to open surgery in living donors for kidney transplantation

196 treatment offers a lower risk alternative to open surgery in many patients with multiple comorbiditie

197 and complications and has replaced standard open surgery in more than half of patients.

198 surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preser

199 d and appears safe but direct comparisons to open surgery in terms of respiratory complications are a

200 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and the role of open surgery in the association.

201 ould be considered as a valid alternative to open surgery in the evaluation and management of orbital

202 y for cancer of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce

203 surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term.

204 rovides distinct advantages over traditional open surgery, including less pain, shorter recovery and

205 creases rates of complications compared with open surgery, independent of preoperative comorbid facto

206 esults are better in short-term outcome than open surgery, irrespective of the hospital of treatment.

207 the benefits of laparoscopy still exist when open surgery is optimized within an ERP.

208 tine application of antiadhesion barriers in open surgery is safe and cost-effective.

209 Although open surgery is the main treatment for proximal aortic r

210 ough the short-term mortality advantage over open surgery is well documented, late mortality and the

211 However, compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery imposes greater ergon

212 Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery

213 horter postoperative length of stay than did open surgery (mean stay, 3.4 vs 8.0 days; P <.001) and a

214 While it is currently assumed that open surgery minimizes operating room staff exposure to

215 Male surgeons converted to open surgery more often than female surgeons in acute ca

216 increased to 10.2% with TEVAR and 17.5% with open surgery, mostly for complicated cases.

217 eurysm with endovascular repair (n = 182) or open surgery (n = 274) between January 1997 and Septembe

218 10% vs. 7%, P =0.5), including conversion to open surgery (n=1), accessory upper pole artery transect

219 comparing curative laparoscopic (n=136) and open surgery (n=142) for upper, mid, and low rectal canc

220 to receive laparoscopic-assisted (n=526) or open surgery (n=268).

221 ndovascular revascularization (N=14,353) and open surgery (N=8601).

222 A total of 204 patients (laparoscopy, n=103; open surgery, n=101) were recruited from 12 UK centers f

223 in the trial (laparoscopic surgery: n = 133; open surgery: n = 147).

224 s in estimated blood loss and conversions to open surgery occurred after 20 cases (600 mL vs 250 mL [

225 s higher for patients undergoing MIPD versus open surgery (odds ratio = 1.87, confidence interval: 1.

226 ce was not associated with use of MIS versus open surgery [odds ratio [OR] 0.90, P = 0.07).

227 er laparoscopic resection (LR) compared with open surgery [open resection (OR)] for colorectal cancer

228 omy (DP) performed by laparoscopy (LapDP) or open surgery (OpenDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcino

229 use of lower extremity vascular procedures (open surgery or endovascular intervention) in the year b

230 ith repair of unruptured aneurysms by either open surgery or endovascular procedures.

231 e stimulation of nerves without the need for open surgery or the implantation of battery-powered puls

232 ation (OR 9.33; P < 0.001) and conversion to open surgery (OR 3.095; P = 0.002) were identified as ri

233 nt (OR = 2.63; 1.89-3.66), and conversion to open surgery (OR = 4.12; CI: 2.47-6.89) were all risk fa

234 The aim of this study was to compare open surgery (OS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) for per

235 n the previously reported learning curve for open surgery (p<0.001).

236 IPAA demonstrated a lower conversion rate to open surgery (P=0.02), a shorter hospital stay (P=0.04),

237 In addition, on POD1, open surgery patients for all 3 indications had signific

238 significantly greater and occurs earlier in open surgery patients.

239 Open surgery persists at high rates, especially in pancr

240 When compared to open surgery, preservation of functional hepatic volume

241 NTS: The study team programmatically queried open surgery procedures on YouTube and manually annotate

242 ze of the defect should be an indication for open surgery procedures.

243 Open surgery remains the gold standard.

244 Although open surgery remains the most common approach, robotic t

245 idely accepted option for most renal tumors, open surgery remains the standard in managing tumors wit

246 short-term benefit compared with traditional open surgery remains unclear.

247 Participants undergoing open surgery reported worse quality of life vs robotic s

248 tients are considered unfit for conventional open surgery, requiring a cardiopulmonary bypass and hyp

249 /161 [18%] vs 25/156 [16%] after robotic and open surgery, respectively) and overall mortality (23/16

250 220 patients reported having had robotic or open surgery, respectively.

251 increasingly popular alternative approach to open surgery, resulting in a paradigm shift in liver sur

252 digital cameras, along with the unstructured open surgery scene, makes this task uniquely challenging

253 Conversion to open surgery should be considered for significant bleedi

254 Yet open surgery still has its place.

255 Nonetheless, in 2012, open surgery still remained the preferred surgical treat

256 y also carried the inherent disadvantages of open surgery, such as postoperative pain, wound complica

257 , breast size, operative time, conversion to open surgery, systemic complications, postoperative skin

258 After open surgery the mortality was 30%; after endovascular p

259 he laparoscopic group required conversion to open surgery; their data were analyzed within the laparo

260 procedures in many surgical specialties from open surgeries to endoscopic ones.

261 in technique for radical prostatectomy from open surgery to minimally invasive robotic-assisted lapa

262 gies for interventions in recent years, from open surgery to minimally invasive surgical and endoscop

263 onservative therapy has evolved from complex open surgery to minimally invasive ureteroscopic therapy

264 ration of accessible, intelligent tools into open surgery to provide actionable insights.

265 the RADP group did not require conversion to open surgery unlike the LDP group (16%, P < 0.05) and ha

266 eatment for chronic lower extremity ischemia-open surgery versus endovascular-is again in flux.

267 nd recurrence-free survival by surgery type (open surgery vs arthroscopic synovectomy), and prespecif

268 garding the effect of the surgical approach (open surgery vs minimally invasive surgery [MIS]) on the

269 ccurrence of both SSI types were identified: open surgery (vs laparoscopic) and current smoker.

270 Open surgeries was videoed and surgeon hands were tracke

271 me, following endovascular procedures versus open surgery was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.43).

272 The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 9%.

273 In patients undergoing cAAA repair, open surgery was associated with higher overall survival

274 Conversion to open surgery was defined as creation of an incision of m

275 Open surgery was required in 3 (10%) patients in the lap

276 Conversion to open surgery was required in 3 patients (IVa, VI, and VI

277 ergoing video-assisted surgery compared with open surgery was similar between non-randomised and rand

278 Patients undergoing open surgery were included in a cross-sectional study an

279 Three conversions (3.6%) to open surgery were necessary during laparoscopic mobiliza

280 (2013-2018) treated with curative intent by open surgery were studied.

281 predictors of conversion of laparoscopic to open surgery were the body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio

282 tryker imaging instruments for endoscopy and open surgery were used in the study.

283 on (COLOR) and rectal (COLOR II) cancer with open surgery, were analyzed.

284 based approach or as a hybrid technique with open surgery, which is being studied in early feasibilit

285 An important role remains for open surgery, which is effective, well tolerated and imp

286 e, which can be treated endoscopically or by open surgery, which is more effective but complications

287 associated with postoperative infertility in open surgery, which may be caused by pelvic adhesions af

288 er, R-IPAA reduced the risk of conversion to open surgery while reducing intraoperative blood loss an

289 empt to mimic the techniques and outcomes of open surgery, while maintaining the advantages of reduce

290 ut early outcomes appear to be comparable to open surgery with decreased patient morbidity.

291 cedures that represent a good alternative to open surgery, with good 12-month follow-up patency resul

292 ssigned at a ratio of 1:1 to laparoscopic or open surgery within an ERP, stratified by center, cancer

293 -assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC tr

294 can provide oncologic outcomes equivalent to open surgery without an increased risk of carcinomatosis

295 EVAR has largely replaced open surgery worldwide for anatomically suitable aortic