ライフサイエンスコーパス: minimally invasive surgery

1 ing or exceeding that of other modalities of minimally invasive surgery.

2 ot represent an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery.

3 safety and with the benefits associated with minimally invasive surgery.

4 replacing heart valves of human patients in minimally invasive surgery.

5 catastrophic and often fatal complication of minimally invasive surgery.

6 my, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery.

7 difficult case, retaining all advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

8 immunotherapy, sphincter-saving surgery, and minimally invasive surgery.

9 applications, like flexible electronics and minimally invasive surgery.

10 ot planing when utilized in combination with minimally invasive surgery.

11 edles around sensitive internal obstacles in minimally invasive surgery.

12 nition is important to ensure success during minimally invasive surgery.

13 thus the selection of patients suitable for minimally invasive surgery.

14 r (MSD) prevalence among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery.

15 ine leiomyoma, is now commonly performed via minimally invasive surgery.

16 ropriate expertise in open esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

17 technology cluster of the last 30 years was minimally invasive surgery.

18 as increased magnification and dexterity for minimally invasive surgery.

19 in vivo manipulation of cells or tissues and minimally invasive surgery.

20 ely improve participants' ability to perform minimally invasive surgery.

21 in technologically advancing areas, such as minimally invasive surgeries.

22 8 [15] years; 369 women [56%]; 366 [56%] had minimally invasive surgery; 52 [8%] had emergency surger

23 anterior leaflet repair, 91%, 92%, 91%; for minimally invasive surgery, 97%, 89%, 93%; and for conve

24 ndings as well as the advantages afforded by minimally invasive surgery, a laparoscopic approach may

25 tasks where classic robots fail, such as in minimally invasive surgery, active prosthetics, and auto

26 ore between 5 and 15, 154 were randomized to minimally invasive surgery and 82 to medical management.

27 ings indicate that late results of MVR after minimally invasive surgery and after anterior leaflet re

28 ch as targeted delivery, in vivo biosensing, minimally invasive surgery and cell manipulation through

29 With the current healthcare climate of minimally invasive surgery and cost control, FNAB should

30 It is particularly valuable in minimally invasive surgery and in heart surgery to corre

31 , but in response to the growing interest in minimally invasive surgery and its success.

32 We examined the use of minimally invasive surgery and the association between t

33 al applications, particularly as devices for minimally invasive surgery and the delivery of therapeut

34 Furthermore, the significant advantages of minimally invasive surgery and the low stoma rate make t

35 his review first addresses the definition of minimally invasive surgery and then analyzes the possibl

36 e, food processing, prosthesis, biomedicine, minimally invasive surgeries, and deep-sea exploration.

37 t robotic platform stands as a refinement of minimally invasive surgery, and also as a potential para

38 tcomes of an open procedure, the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, and easy adoptability will o

39 With the avenue of minimally invasive surgery, and more recently the availa

40 athobiology, ultra-early hemostatic therapy, minimally invasive surgery, and perihematomal protection

41 n is required include percutaneous drainage, minimally invasive surgery, and/or endoscopic treatment.

42 widespread adoption and clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery approaches (MIS) in partial n

43 The indications for minimally invasive surgery are explained.

44 lmium laser enucleation of the prostate) and minimally invasive surgery are highly effective for refr

45 The indications for fertility-sparing and minimally invasive surgery as well as the current guidel

46 Respondents spanned minimally invasive surgery, bariatric, colorectal, hepat

47 largely restricted to high-volume reference minimally invasive surgery centers.

48 We hypothesized that minimally invasive surgery could be done safely and cost

49 ty score-matched analysis that accounted for minimally invasive surgery demonstrated that program imp

50 Data concerning new techniques, such as minimally invasive surgery, document promising results b

51 improve outcome in spinal epidural abscess: minimally invasive surgery early versus medical manageme

52 corded and analyzed, 4 attending surgeons, 6 minimally invasive surgery fellows, and 5 residents (pos

53 o bring order to this chaotic situation, the Minimally Invasive Surgery Fellowship Council (MISFC) wa

54 ve resection margins occur frequently during minimally invasive surgery for colorectal liver metastas

55 The benefits of minimally invasive surgery for common disorders like app

56 ent, mean health plan spending was lower for minimally invasive surgery for coronary revascularizatio

57 In 311 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for GERD/HH, the distance bet

58 Minimally invasive surgery for left ventricular assist d

59 harms while maintaining the availability of minimally invasive surgery for symptomatic leiomyoma.

60 and is expected to drive several aspects of minimally invasive surgery forward in the near future wi

61 le racial distribution and minimal uptake of minimally invasive surgery from 2010 to 2017.

62 tive group (6.2%) than in the open-repair or minimally invasive surgery group (0.6% in each).

63 There were 9 nerve injuries in the minimally invasive surgery group (in 5.2% of the patient

64 e open-repair group, and -14.7 points in the minimally invasive surgery group (P = 0.57).

65 he open surgery group vs 130.0 [19.8] in the minimally invasive surgery group) or 3 months after surg

66 oup and 252 [79%] of 319 participants in the minimally invasive surgery group).

67 e open surgery group and 319 assigned to the minimally invasive surgery group.

68 tween the open surgery (129.3 [SD 18.8]) and minimally invasive surgery groups (129.8 [19.8]).

69 Minimally invasive surgery has an expanding role in the

70 Minimally invasive surgery has an increasingly prominent

71 Although minimally invasive surgery has been extended to neonatal

72 Over the past decade, minimally invasive surgery has been introduced as a mean

73 In the last few decades minimally invasive surgery has evolved to complement mor

74 The increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery has grown concurrently with t

75 ery (FESS), as a cornerstone of contemporary minimally invasive surgery, has the potential to mitigat

76 Minimally invasive surgeries have been shown to have adv

77 Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery have clearly benefited childr

78 Advances in minimally invasive surgery have demonstrated the safety

79 Recent innovations in minimally invasive surgery, however, have decreased morb

80 ed trials are needed to demonstrate whether (minimally invasive) surgery improves functional outcome

81 approach in 82.2% of patients (n = 3414) and minimally invasive surgery in 17.8% (n = 737).

82 ntional sternotomy was used in 843 patients, minimally invasive surgery in 352 (since June 1996).

83 red nonoperative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery in adults with acute Achilles

84 A systematic approach of minimally invasive surgery in patients with prior corona

85 With ongoing advances of minimally invasive surgery in the face of the limitation

86 Vaginal surgery is the true minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of pelvic or

87 The use of minimally invasive surgery increased from 45.8% to 82.2%

88 nters worldwide have instituted some form of minimally invasive surgery into their operative armament

89 Minimally invasive surgery involving the thoracic cavity

90 Minimally invasive surgery is associated with better pre

91 In fact, as minimally invasive surgery is being applied to treat mor

92 High quality minimally invasive surgery is challenging.

93 The nomenclature for minimally invasive surgery is ill defined.

94 Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly used and appe

95 The combined procedure using minimally invasive surgery is safe, with the additional

96 Minimally invasive surgery is significantly associated w

97 Minimally invasive surgery is the current preferred trea

98 Minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach in

99 0.68-0.85, I(2) = 23%, 21 studies), and for minimally invasive surgery it was 0.68 (95% CI = 0.56-0.

100 .22-1.60, I(2) = 46%, 20 studies), and after minimally invasive surgery it was 1.47 (95% CI = 1.26-1.

101 re randomly assigned to groups that received minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or video-assist

102 authors' center with extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic repair of giant

103 Minimally invasive surgery limits soft-tissue damage and

104 The benefits seen with minimally invasive surgery make it more acceptable.

105 ns in living donors and the pros and cons of minimally invasive surgery; managing immune risks; UTx d

106 one in the past 2 decades, the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery may have had sizeable but ove

107 The SBTS group had higher rates of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (65.5% vs. 16.9%, p < 0

108 The bond between surgeons practicing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and the high-tech indus

109 Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has created a shift in

110 e plasminogen activator, in combination with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with intrac

111 Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a surgical technique

112 Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a surgical technique

113 In recent years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is considered in carefu

114 ty evidence of its safety and effectiveness, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly used to

115 Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is limited in safety an

116 The learning and practice of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) makes unique demands on

117 terature comparing the impact of open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on postoperative extend

118 Racial disparities in receipt of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) persist in the United S

119 nths, and to understand the emerging role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques in nephron-s

120 g recent advances with respect to urological minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

121 Receipt of surgery, emergent surgery, or minimally invasive surgery (MIS); 90-day surgical compli

122 ct of the surgical approach (open surgery vs minimally invasive surgery [MIS]) on the risk for SSIs.

123 Minimally invasive surgery modalities are associated wit

124 y are occurring in improved anesthetic care, minimally invasive surgery, nonoperative therapies, risk

125 ations by 17 surgeons performing their first minimally invasive surgery of the mitral valve operation

126 rning process involved in the performance of minimally invasive surgery of the mitral valve using dat

127 A true learning curve exists for minimally invasive surgery of the mitral valve.

128 can reduce adhesion formation, the effect of minimally invasive surgery on long-term adhesion-related

129 pite the radically novel skills required for minimally invasive surgery or interventional cardiology,

130 supratentorial ICH in a 2:1 ratio to either minimally invasive surgery or medical management alone.

131 artial nephrectomy (OR, 0.51; p = 0.003) and minimally invasive surgery (OR, 0.33; p < 0.001) predict

132 nd latent qualities of robotic assistance in minimally invasive surgery over conventional surgery, ro

133 sted lack of evidence for the superiority of minimally invasive surgery over medical management (odds

134 significantly fewer end colostomies and more minimally invasive surgeries (p<0.001 and p=0.004, respe

135 Exposure was minimally invasive surgery plus alteplase (MIS+alteplase

136 ntraventricular Hemorrhage III trial and the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for Intracereb

137 Post hoc secondary analysis of the Minimally Invasive Surgery plus Alteplase for Intracereb

138 ter ERAS implementation, there was increased minimally invasive surgery (PRE 39.6%->POST 62.7%), redu

139 edure and 40.6% of patients who received the minimally invasive surgery (risk ratio 0.29; 95% confide

140 Robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RMIS) holds great promise fo

141 Given the inherent advantages of minimally invasive surgery, robotic or laparoscopic abdo

142 Trainees undergoing a minimally invasive surgery rotation were randomized to e

143 No-opioid minimally invasive surgery should be the goal rather tha

144 re flexibility and breadth in residency, (3) minimally invasive surgery should largely return to GS,

145 cted necrotizing pancreatitis, compared with minimally invasive surgery, significantly reduced major

146 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Minimally invasive surgeries such as conventional laparo

147 The success of elective minimally invasive surgery suggested that this concept c

148 bated, with limited data comparing transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and endoscopic submuc

149 One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endosco

150 ombines 3D bio-printing and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery techniques to meet this need.

151 With the profound public stress for minimally invasive surgery that guided General Surgery,

152 ric gastrointestinal surgery have focused on minimally invasive surgery, the accumulation of high-qua

153 ng established the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery, the focus moved to assuring

154 s have been developed, including advances in minimally invasive surgery, the increasing use of osteoi

155 al unresectable stage cIIIB NSCLC to radical minimally invasive surgery through immunochemotherapy; w

156 We have applied minimally invasive surgery to perform kidney transplant

157 In order for ambulatory minimally invasive surgery to succeed, patient selection

158 ers quoted will show that the application of minimally invasive surgery to the treatment of common pr

159 orbital intraconal tumors were treated with minimally invasive surgery using an endonasal endoscopic

160 Clinical outcomes from videoscope assisted minimally invasive surgery (VMIS) at 36 to 58 months are

161 We compared outcomes of minimally invasive surgery vs endoscopic approaches for

162 overall and 1.4% for isolated MVR (1.1% for minimally invasive surgery vs. 1.6% for conventional ste

163 Undergoing minimally invasive surgery was associated with missing s

164 Since 1993, when minimally invasive surgery was first recorded in ACGME d

165 les' tendon rupture, surgery (open repair or minimally invasive surgery) was not associated with bett

166 During videoscope-assisted minimally invasive surgery which uses a high magnificati

167 olpopexy, surgeons can offer the benefits of minimally invasive surgery while avoiding risks of vagin

168 regional hypothermia, laser technology, and minimally invasive surgery, will influence future tumor

169 summarizes our early experience of combining minimally invasive surgery with ultra-fast-track anesthe

170 In the MIND randomized clinical trial, minimally invasive surgery within 72 hours did not signi

171 Minimally invasive surgery (within 72 hours of symptom o