ライフサイエンスコーパス: revision surgery

1 ation requiring closed or open reduction, or revision surgery).

2 ) underwent surgery, and 4 (18.2%) underwent revision surgery.

3 underwent surgery, and 27 (48.2%) underwent revision surgery.

4 is restricted to aggressive physiotherapy or revision surgery.

5 nd accurate identification of candidates for revision surgery.

6 edian body mass index 24 kg/m at the time of revision surgery.

7 rove the success rates of EN-DCR, especially revision surgery.

8 uction are being explored as alternatives to revision surgery.

9 or persistence, as evidenced by the need for revision surgery.

10 are not uniformly successful and can require revision surgery.

11 c complications following TJR: bilateral and revision surgery.

12 acement, or cycloablation, 75% required bleb revision surgery.

13 R) technique may influence the likelihood of revision surgery.

14 d 3 involved a mixture of acute, delayed, or revision surgery.

15 al auditory canals, or cochlear implantation revision surgery.

16 han adults to receive a rhinoplasty as their revision surgery.

17 ld potentially identify patients at risk for revision surgery.

18 ty conversion rate, and associated risks for revision surgery.

19 onths after surgery or prior to an indicated revision surgery.

20 The main outcome measure was revision surgery.

21 The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery.

22 bosis of the free flap pedicle that required revision surgery.

23 Two patients in the NPG underwent revision surgery.

24 ease implant lifetime and avoid failures and revision surgeries.

25 ually necessitate painful, risky, and costly revision surgeries.

26 Five patients (9.8%) required revision surgeries.

27 ly innovative design to significantly reduce revision surgeries.

28 s in IOP, medication use, complications, and revision surgeries.

29 olume increased.An increase in the chance of revision surgery (10.6% vs 8.2%, P < 0.001) was seen wit

30 edema (CME) (15% vs. 4%, P < .001), need for revision surgery (11% vs. 6%, P = .04), and uveitic flar

31 use was associated with a decreased risk of revision surgery (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) =

32 al PFS (icPFS) as well as incidence of wound revision surgery after brain metastasis resection.

33 RT: A 49-year-old patient was admitted for a revision surgery after L3-L5 fusion.

34 isk of mortality, serious adverse events and revision surgery after shoulder replacement.

35 nding human breast implants collected during revision surgeries also differentially alters the indivi

36 New reports about Intacs revision surgery also allows us to retreat many patients

37 ive cohort studies exist on the incidence of revision surgery among patients who undergo operations f

38 use of joint arthroplasty failure, requiring revision surgeries and a new implant, resulting in a cos

39 costs associated with primary and potential revision surgeries and long-term care costs associated w

40 eeve gastrectomy, except for higher rates of revision surgery and immediate postoperative complicatio

41 ulder replacements yearly and lower rates of revision surgery and reoperation, lower risk of serious

42 Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize i

43 Overall, 36 eyelids (29.5%) underwent revision surgery at 9.1 +/- 9.2 months after implantatio

44 Four (14%) patients required revision surgery at a median 11.5 (IQR = 2-51) months po

45 tient was defined as any woman who underwent revision surgery at facility A between January 2000 and

46 e breast implants of women who had undergone revision surgery at facility A.

47 stics and used to generate lifetime risks of revision surgery based on increasing age at the time of

48 Synovial fluid from patients undergoing revision surgery contained elevated concentrations of th

49 calculation for SAT usually included whether revision surgery could be performed and what type, the o

50 Patients undergoing revision surgery following failed previous surgery for I

51 crubbed consultant, or not), and the risk of revision surgery following UKR.

52 by tendon debridement and calcaneoplasty for revision surgery for IAT is feasible and reliable, achie

53 Tissues obtained from patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI revealed similar patterns of im

54 eristics of those that subsequently required revision surgery for PPD were assessed and compared with

55 ion complication rates of one- and two-stage revision surgery for shoulder PJI using a systematic rev

56 underwent MR imaging within 1 year prior to revision surgery from 2012 to 2014.

57 ssment of surgery outcomes based on data for revision surgery from national joint-replacement registr

58 Revision surgery had to be performed in 1/15 (7%) patien

59 nts (odds ratio 1.36 [95%CI 1.05, 1.77]) and revision surgery (HR 1.70 [95%CI 1.25, 2.33]).

60 The lifetime risk of requiring revision surgery in patients who had total hip replaceme

61 The decision for lip revision surgery in patients with repaired cleft lip/pal

62 ion in the first six weeks compared with one revision surgery in the K-wire group (odds ratio 0.02, 9

63 dolescent patients almost inevitably require revision surgery in their lifetime.

64 termine if those predictions were related to revision surgery incidence.

65 ecutive months of oral corticosteroids), and revision surgery involving polypectomy.

66 designs: 1) case-control (each patient with revision surgery matched to 4 controls), 2) time-depende

67 nvestigated the associations between BMI and revision surgery, mortality, and pain/function using wha

68 Obesity and revision surgery, mortality, and patient-reported outcom

69 The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for an

70 compression alone or fusion-and the need for revision surgery or the outcomes of pain, disability, an

71 Studies that included patients needing revision surgery or undergoing an alternative technique

72 lar heart disease (OR 1.6 [95% CI 0.9-2.6]), revision surgery (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), and bilatera

73 resholds, loss of light perception, hypotony revision surgery, or need for additional IOP-lowering su

74 gnificant difference in the risk profiles of revision surgery over time, no statistically significant

75 erest was the difference in early, all-cause revision surgery rates after primary THA between women a

76 At 5-year follow-up, 12 patients underwent revision surgery, representing a cumulative revision rat

77 TSR and TSR were found in terms of long term revision surgery, serious adverse events, reoperations,

78 iatric patients are more likely to receive a revision surgery than their adult counterparts.

79 The present study reports the outcomes of revision surgery using a Cincinnati incision with tendon

80 NTS: A legacy cohort study on breast implant revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, an

81 tive cohort study on breast implantation and revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, an

82 Revision surgery was performed in 54 hips on the basis o

83 differences in preoperative characteristics: revision surgery was performed in 7 cases (3 without and

84 Below this threshold the risk of revision surgery was significantly increased, as much as

85 Revision surgeries were needed in 26.7% (TE) vs. 23.1% (

86 ial tissue obtained from patients undergoing revision surgery were determined by immunohistochemistry

87 vial fluid obtained from patients undergoing revision surgery were higher than those in synovial flui

88 However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for th

89 ts with high BMI were more likely to undergo revision surgery within 10 years compared to those with

90 , serious adverse events within 90 days, and revision surgery within 4.5 years of surgery.