ライフサイエンスコーパス: resective

1 hesis can provide insight into potential new resective, ablative and neuromodulation approaches to im

2 With the poor results of resective and fenestration procedures for polycystic liv

3 The ultimate goal of both resective and regenerative periodontal procedures is the

4 psy patients (18-28 years old) who underwent resective brain surgery (n = 6), as well as in older con

5 Half of patients who have resective brain surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy have

6 In the 18 patients who underwent resective brain surgery, neuroimaging results were compa

7 -resistant epilepsy who are not suitable for resective brain surgery.

8 than half of adults with epilepsy undergoing resective epilepsy surgery achieve long-term seizure fre

9 antiseizure medication withdrawal following resective epilepsy surgery and were free of seizures oth

10 udited seizure outcome of 693 adults who had resective epilepsy surgery between 1990 and 2010 and use

11 Resective epilepsy surgery can be an effective treatment

12 Resective epilepsy surgery can be beneficial, particular

13 is study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of resective epilepsy surgery compared with medical managem

14 n and seizure outcome of patients undergoing resective epilepsy surgery for this condition.

15 ions of patients, who had undergone a second resective epilepsy surgery from 1989 to 2009.

16 Resective epilepsy surgery is an established clinical in

17 Reoperation after failed resective epilepsy surgery led to approximately 70% long

18 For carefully selected individuals, resective epilepsy surgery may offer the best hope for a

19 rationale for the development and support of resective epilepsy surgery programmes across national he

20 Resective epilepsy surgery was shown to be cost-effectiv

21 t one stimulation-induced seizure, underwent resective epilepsy surgery, and had a postoperative foll

22 lated quality of life (HRQOL) improves after resective epilepsy surgery, but data are limited to shor

23 mesial temporal lobe epilepsy who underwent resective epilepsy surgery.

24 lp minimize damage to eloquent cortex during resective epilepsy surgery.

25 ents, 9 (38%) had an excellent outcome after resective epilepsy surgery.

26 ve multicenter study, 396 patients underwent resective epilepsy surgery.

27 s with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent resective epilepsy surgery.

28 revives interest in seizure imaging to guide resective epilepsy surgery.

29 tracranial EEG of 20 patients that underwent resective epilepsy surgery.

30 ears) who achieved seizure control following resective epilepsy surgery.

31 ether the administration of infliximab after resective intestinal surgery for Crohn's disease reduces

32 e lack of an evidence basis for 'aggressive' resective management continues to pose dilemmas for surg

33 rapy, ketogenic diet, hypothermia, emergency resective neurosurgery and multiple subpial transection,

34 gnificant cause of morbidity, the effects of resective neurosurgery and their relation to tumour path

35 Resective neurosurgery carries the risk of postoperative

36 Resective neurosurgery is a cornerstone treatment for ma

37 reoperatively and before discharge following resective neurosurgery.

38 can identify patients likely to benefit from resective or ablative therapy, and perhaps prevent invas

39 A resective or debulking surgical approach was described i

40 nt open-flap debridement and did not undergo resective or regenerative periodontal therapy.

41 ectiveness of dental lasers as an adjunct to resective or regenerative surgical periodontal therapy.

42 Healthy subjects who needed resective periodontal surgery participated in the study.

43 inical application of brain tonometry during resective procedures could guide the area of resection a

44 Osseous resective procedures predictably produce minimal clinica

45 Among cases managed surgically, resective procedures were performed in 89% of cases, whe

46 al approaches, ranging from flap-for-access, resective, reconstructive, or soft tissue augmentation p

47 ans of implantoplasty as adjunct to surgical resective (RES) and reconstructive (REC) therapies and s

48 fer valuable information for use in planning resective surgeries in patients with brain lesions, as w

49 vs 2.56; P < 0.001), but less likely to use resective surgery (3.09 vs 3.53; P < 0.001) than Europea

50 Although 9 of 24 patients undergoing resective surgery (38%) had excellent outcomes, only 9 o

51 fied 85 patients who underwent temporal lobe resective surgery (49 left temporal lobe, 36 right tempo

52 underwent SDE had higher odds of subsequent resective surgery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4, 95% confidence

53 significantly linked to increased chances of resective surgery (OR = 4.27, CI = 1.41-12.94, p = 0.01)

54 ing magnetoencephalography (MEG) followed by resective surgery after determination of the epileptogen

55 asia quotients and language quotients before resective surgery all had normal quotients postoperative

56 considered, looking at changes in classical resective surgery and new methodology being introduced i

57 studies, support the efficacy and safety of resective surgery and, more recently, non-resective surg

58 Dysphasia and its response to resective surgery are related to the tumour neuropatholo

59 achieved seizure freedom after frontal lobe resective surgery at Great Ormond Street Hospital.

60 rom a development cohort of patients who had resective surgery at the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH

61 Resective surgery did not prevent the recurrence of seiz

62 ation has become an important alternative to resective surgery for control of pharmacologically-resis

63 mechanism in a series of patients undergoing resective surgery for epilepsy; namely anterior temporal

64 Resective surgery for left-sided intracranial tumours si

65 eview of 143 patients with MCD who underwent resective surgery for medically refractory epilepsy.

66 0 and 2010 with 8,091 adult patients who had resective surgery for supratentorial infiltrative glioma

67 Extending outcome analysis beyond the resective surgery group to the entire group of patients

68 Reported rates for non-resective surgery have been less impressive in terms of

69 These new drugs along with earlier resective surgery have led to a better outcome for many

70 Resective surgery is a safe and effective treatment of d

71 Resective surgery is at best regarded as a practice opti

72 Elucidating surgical outcomes of resective surgery is crucial to defining its role.

73 In the case of drug resistant epilepsy resective surgery is often considered.

74 epilepsy is commonly pharmacoresistant, and resective surgery is often contraindicated by proximity

75 patients with medically refractory epilepsy, resective surgery is the mainstay of therapy to achieve

76 We report the immediate effects of resective surgery on language functions in a heterogeneo

77 ients with newly intractable disabling MTLE, resective surgery plus AED treatment resulted in a lower

78 good, but the problem of brain shift during resective surgery remains problematical and is a cogent

79 Failure to treat unicentric disease by resective surgery resulted in a significant mortality (1

80 n seizure-free focal epilepsy patients after resective surgery using Neurocraft.

81 dministration of infliximab after intestinal resective surgery was effective at preventing endoscopic

82 idualized therapy, including drug treatment, resective surgery, adverse-event management, and nutriti

83 al findings, surgical approach, outcome from resective surgery, and implications for pathophysiology.

84 urgical techniques reviewed included osseous resective surgery, flap curettage, distal wedge procedur

85 m patients with stage III/IV OSCC undergoing resective surgery, PCA was significantly reduced in the

86 syndrome, allow patients to be assessed for resective surgery.

87 erative scores, 57% remained dysphasic after resective surgery.

88 refractory to drugs should be evaluated for resective surgery.

89 he 18 infants were considered candidates for resective surgery.

90 esistant epilepsy who are not candidates for resective surgery.

91 rovides a promising treatment alternative to resective surgery.

92 refractory epilepsy patients ineligibles for resective surgery.

93 (i.e. MR-negative) with lesions confirmed by resective surgery.

94 ripples (Rs), fast ripples (FRs), and VHFOs; resective surgery; and at least 1 year of postoperative

95 of resective surgery and, more recently, non-resective surgical interventions for the treatment of dr

96 periods, a possibility that is eliminated by resective surgical treatment approaches.

97 s for treating brain disorders and operative resective techniques for complex surgery of the motor co

98 approach to the use of both regenerative and resective therapies will enhance the clinical results ac

99 iodontal therapy should be considered before resective therapy or extraction; 2) The application of a

100 After resective therapy, a successful treatment outcome was de

101 e surgically treated for peri-implantitis by resective therapy.

102 tudy was to compare postsurgical outcomes of resective treatment for peri-implantitis with and withou

103 ble treatment outcomes were identified after resective treatment of peri-implantitis: 1) peri-implant

104 ease (MCD), nature of the surgical approach (resective vs diagnostic), and outcome (disease-free surv