戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。

今後説明を表示しない

[OK]

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 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

WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。
 
Page Top