ライフサイエンスコーパス: open surgery

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

2 ermined using ultrasound imaging followed by open surgery.

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

4 r hospital stay and fewer complications than open surgery.

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

6 n demonstrated to provide similar results of open surgery.

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

8 er postoperative complications compared with open surgery.

9 lity of resveratrol application suitable for open surgery.

10 omparable with those reported previously for open surgery.

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

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

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

14 re laparoscopy might provide advantages over open surgery.

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

16 shown to duplicate the oncologic outcomes of open surgery.

17 d reinterventions and hospitalizations after open surgery.

18 overall preservation of immune function than open surgery.

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

20 TE is lower after laparoscopic compared with open surgery.

21 acoscopic surgery compared with those having open surgery.

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

23 itial hospitalization after laparoscopic and open surgery.

24 h protracted recovery and attendant risks of open surgery.

25 and oncologic outcomes appear equivalent to open surgery.

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

27 ts underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery.

28 There were no conversions to open surgery.

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

30 ssociated with conversion of laparoscopic to open surgery.

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

32 ve perforations and only four conversions to open surgery.

33 ubset should be treated with arthroscopic or open surgery.

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

35 e after an endovascular procedure than after open surgery.

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

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

38 There were three conversions to open surgery.

39 There were three conversions to open surgery.

40 ts and compared with conventional data after open surgery.

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

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

43 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery.

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

45 B was performed using linear staplers during open surgery.

46 n involves endo-urological interventions and open surgery.

47 performed with nearly identical standards to open surgery.

48 tive hypercapnia and acidosis, compared with open surgery.

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

50 be lower after laparoscopic IPAA than after open surgery.

51 scular revascularization and lower extremity open surgery.

52 om environment during minimally invasive and open surgery.

53 perative arterial blood gases, compared with open surgery.

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

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

56 and reported undergoing either a robotic or open surgery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

83 692 did not have aneurysmal repair, 1917 had open surgery, and 451 had endovascular procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98 00002575), investigating laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

155 10% vs. 7%, P =0.5), including conversion to open surgery (n=1), accessory upper pole artery transect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

167 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

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

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

170 significantly greater and occurs earlier in open surgery patients.

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

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

173 Open surgery remains the gold standard.

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

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

176 220 patients reported having had robotic or open surgery, respectively.

177 Yet open surgery still has its place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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