戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 o have less severe complications and shorter surgical time.
2 tates spontaneous unfolding, thus minimizing surgical time.
3 between DMEK and ultrathin DSAEK at any post-surgical time.
4 plications, postoperative complications, and surgical time.
5 ere were no differences in digit survival by surgical time.
6  of discomfort, which may account for longer surgical times.
7 fect cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, or surgical times.
8 ated results, but with significantly shorter surgical times.
9 aids in risk stratification and helps decide surgical timing.
10 pective data suggest equivalent outcomes for surgical timing.
11  study supports the concept of using PFT for surgical timing.
12 ined < 1% of between-hospital variability in surgical timing.
13 nd transfers to surgical centres also impact surgical timing.
14 ck disease progression and determine optimal surgical timing.
15 has been extensive controversy regarding its surgical timing.
16 ion, residual disease post-chemotherapy, and surgical timing.
17                                              Surgical time (211 vs. 256 minutes, p < 0.005), blood lo
18 /- 9 years vs. 72 +/- 6 years; mean +/- SD), surgical time (235 +/- 95 minutes vs. 219 +/- 84 minutes
19 fusates were collected during the back-table surgical time after the procurement procedures for donor
20 icant variations in complication rate and in surgical time among the surgeons.
21 ,260 cases met our criteria for analysis for surgical time and 15,106 cases for outcomes.
22 and safe technique associated with a shorter surgical time and a lower early readmission rate.
23                                 In addition, surgical time and hospital stay were both significantly
24 s feasible with both techniques, but shorter surgical time and minimal tissue damage were achieved us
25    It is thought to be less invasive, reduce surgical time and post-operative infection rates compare
26 aoperative techniques significantly increase surgical time and, consequently, cost.
27 ces, limit the scope of their uses, lengthen surgical times and increase the need for advanced surgic
28 ned residents during actual surgery for both surgical times and numbers of errors.
29  were compared prospectively with respect to surgical times and perioperative outcomes.
30 red or "standard" CRS), defining the correct surgical timing and eventual discontinuation of ICI ther
31 core and expertise score were used to assess surgical timing and outcomes.
32 ase in the population, research into optimal surgical timing and patient selection is critical.
33  risk-benefit discussions concerning optimal surgical timing and perioperative outcomes for patients
34 shed predictors and could potentially aid in surgical timing and risk stratification.
35 spects of visual rehabilitation, appropriate surgical timing and technique, and the type and material
36                           Preoperative data, surgical time, and postoperative morbidity were similar.
37 fy the surgery with reproducibility, reduced surgical time, and reduced tissue wastage, cost, and log
38 fluenced by the surgical technique used, the surgical time, and the use of antibiotics.
39 rly microvascular healing (primary outcome), surgical times, and patient-reported outcomes (PROM) aft
40 re efficient phacoemulsifiers, and decreased surgical times are a few of the changes that have helped
41  knowledge on genetics, pre-natal diagnosis, surgical timing, balloon atrial septostomy, prostaglandi
42  significantly reduces resource utilization (surgical time, blood replacement, intensive care unit an
43 rectomy sclerotomy site may potentially save surgical time by obviating the need to create another sc
44          PFS benefits were consistent across surgical timing, chemotherapy responses, and residual di
45  secondary outcomes were the differential in surgical times, costs, and margin for standard and compl
46                             This analysis of surgical time courses has identified potential new strat
47 ution, year of surgery, joint (hip or knee), surgical time, CRP, preoperative hemoglobin, albumin, an
48                                              Surgical time decreased by 1.4 minutes per eye in a line
49  collected on intraoperative bleeding, total surgical time, early (<1 month) postoperative vitreous h
50    Functional MR imaging resulted in reduced surgical time (estimated reduction, 15-60 minutes) in 22
51  imaging results and estimated the effect on surgical time, extent of resection, and surgical approac
52 imated influence of functional MR imaging on surgical time, extent of resection, and surgical approac
53               In the 2 studies that compared surgical time, fibrin glue required 1 to 5 minutes less
54 o cessation of steroid drops, complications, surgical time, follow-up visits, postoperative intervent
55                                     The mean surgical time for the CALLISTO group was 28.09 +/- 1.72
56 ing role of exercise echocardiography in the surgical timing for aortic regurgitation remains a matte
57 ry hypertension in decision making regarding surgical timing for asymptomatic chronic mitral regurgit
58         Guideline emphasis on stent type and surgical timing for both DES and BMS should be reevaluat
59 on and magnitude of trends in the resident's surgical timing for each action across their first year
60 ficient of 12% suggested poor correlation of surgical timing for patients with similar characteristic
61 ve enophthalmos, fracture size/displacement, surgical timing, globe/soft tissue repair, and medial wa
62 esponses, and residual disease; for example, surgical timing had HRs of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31-0.84) for
63                                     The mean surgical time in our series was 115.8 min, with a mean e
64  is needed to confirm its promise in guiding surgical timing in patients who have discontinued therap
65                          Previous studies of surgical timing in patients with hip fracture have yield
66 arkers, and biomarkers is needed to optimize surgical timing in primary MR.
67                It is not known whether these surgical times influence early outcomes after liver tran
68  to its early detection, decision making for surgical time, managing preoperative risk factors, and p
69                         In certain patients, surgical time may be shortened, the extent of resection
70 yes, ReLACS was superior to MCS for reducing surgical time (MCS: 7.7 +/- 0.1 min vs ReLACS: 6.8 +/- 0
71                     The authors compared the surgical time of each technique.
72 ss the feasibility of the techniques and the surgical time of laparoscopy and celiotomy used in intra
73   This study sought to examine the impact of surgical timing on major morbidity and hospital reimburs
74 ignificant differences between the groups in surgical time or total hospital charges; however, the ch
75   Further studies may help determine whether surgical timing or other interventions can improve the o
76 sely affect digit survival; however, whether surgical timing (overnight or daytime) is associated wit
77 tribute to greater flap strength at any post-surgical time point, nor was it associated with any hist
78 fect of PRP on flap strength at various post-surgical time points in a minipig animal model.
79  were no differences in terms of blood loss, surgical times, postoperative complications, and initial
80                                    Decreased surgical times, reduced postoperative inflammation, and
81 changing when OR time was released, reducing surgical times, reducing turnover times, reducing OR tim
82 f TDABC identified a day-of-surgery cost and surgical time reduction associated with the use of prelo
83 0-10); cosmetic satisfaction; intraoperative surgical time; speculum width; incidence of ptosis (defi
84 s, this procedure has manifest advantages in surgical time, technical complexity, patient morbidity,
85              Repositioning had a longer mean surgical time than exchange (P < 0.001).
86                      Secondary outcomes were surgical times, time-related costs, and material costs.
87                         Moreover, only 7% of surgical timing variability within-centers was explained
88  15) or portal vein thrombosis (n = 14).Mean surgical time was 11.33 +/- 0.28 hours.
89                                     The mean surgical time was 13 min shorter in the test (p = 0.00).
90                                         Mean surgical time was 161 minutes and was greater in the fir
91                                              Surgical time was 196 minutes +/- 67 (mean +/- SD), bloo
92                                   The median surgical time was 205 minutes (range, 100-520).
93                                         Mean surgical time was 235.0 +/- 66.7 minutes, with a mean bl
94                                         Mean surgical time was 71.3 +/- 32.1 minutes in the study gro
95                                              Surgical time was higher in the laparoscopy group (252 +
96                                         Less surgical time was needed when using the CALLISTO eye tha
97                                              Surgical time was recorded and compared between the robo
98                                  The average surgical times were 55 and 38 min for RD surgeries and f
99                             Although overall surgical times were similar, 3D HUD macular peel times w
100                        Varying approaches to surgical timing were applied as the series matured.
101  were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical timing within 48 hours (early) or after 48 hour
102 ithout VGF, although VGF patients had longer surgical times, worse target artery quality, longer graf

 
Page Top