Assessment and comparison of recovery after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: an exploratory study in two centers. - Wikidata - wikimedia - TriplyDB

Assessment and comparison of recovery after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: an exploratory study in two centers.

Assessment and comparison of recovery after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: an exploratory study in two centers.

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q39201867

about

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.A propensity-matched analysis comparing survival after primary minimally invasive esophagectomy followed by adjuvant therapy to neoadjuvant therapy for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial.The Prognostic Impact of Preoperative and Postoperative Chemoradiation in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinomas: A Population Based Study in Taiwan.Meta-analysis of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.Impact of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer.Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.The '-omics' revolution and oesophageal adenocarcinoma.The contemporary role of minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer.Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes.

P2860

Q24185993-3C0C3702-2807-40C7-8400-5B5A332C2198 Q28076361-43608524-4C0D-449A-9A69-DAAD54BDD8E6 Q35701804-D073B68A-F35C-493B-A917-4B4E9B624374 Q35820777-6BCDDBB1-6E25-4381-9D02-9BBB3421657D Q35833494-1800AD4C-D196-4546-83D9-324F95314D33 Q35857902-77FA4DEC-0C89-4084-9749-0C9CA4F4CABA Q36410500-D6D94B21-6925-47AD-88C4-5D0716550AE7 Q36549791-E7A2D049-53DA-4DFD-B069-E4F33B12C37C Q37395580-BCF78B5D-7B74-4E99-A543-214F41266669 Q38132057-BF0C4CB9-DB17-41BA-BE79-B7285DC08215 Q38184457-5EAFBF9F-5214-47AA-8218-BD2EF2E82B08 Q38610362-313A8ED6-CBE5-447D-8B3E-338588C4A4A9 Q38892869-60633B02-B7ED-4BE3-8C1A-0C6152A2B8F0

P2860

Assessment and comparison of recovery after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: an exploratory study in two centers.

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q39201867

description

2013 nî lūn-bûn

@nan

2013年の論文

@ja

2013年論文

@yue

2013年論文

@zh-hant

2013年論文

@zh-hk

2013年論文

@zh-mo

2013年論文

@zh-tw

2013年论文

@wuu

2013年论文

@zh

2013年论文

@zh-cn

name

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@en

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@nl

type

label

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@en

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@nl

prefLabel

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@en

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@nl

P1433

Q39201867-8F9D7BB9-7753-4FE8-AC56-AB6FB6B37FE2

P1476

Q39201867-0FACFF8C-2783-4663-BE86-B94FA42DBDA7

P2093

Q39201867-07311A36-E535-445B-B623-EA605BF653E1

Q39201867-6B33C035-6E0B-4E2E-A7B9-44BDA1D4BEB6

Q39201867-80209671-37D6-4BC4-B1A1-8BF4B3B3240A

Q39201867-809C6921-51B1-48F5-99DD-9AFA813776B4

Q39201867-8525CED7-FFC6-485E-ADCB-AE0A7E014894

Q39201867-8E480F82-E02B-452A-80B4-8FD8557B62D3

Q39201867-A3665B6C-05ED-486B-A7A0-1F7D8496B7E8

Q39201867-B55F0236-8A65-44D0-8EBA-98F3D15A51A5

Q39201867-BF5899BE-C3E3-4546-B25F-1310154E6B36

Q39201867-DB7B153E-B3DB-464F-92D8-7269B74E4DCD

P2860

Q39201867-099FA7ED-24A9-4969-B972-5C842BA96832

Q39201867-0C919F39-9CC7-4C0A-B096-339FA2DBB8CF

Q39201867-12FF550D-71F2-4324-945E-6B07BE6E74FB

Q39201867-13ADF705-CB1D-4250-A603-F4B2560ED818

Q39201867-15008620-45C4-4439-A130-DCF377BC88E6

Q39201867-345AB475-E565-4D8D-89B5-79C82CB265C4

Q39201867-34E13B78-C407-451A-922D-813A1F46246A

Q39201867-37BBA526-6555-4F27-8130-46242255C471

Q39201867-390E8D61-1840-4CE5-9082-D544E0C4FA86

Q39201867-3E83ECA5-F226-4126-ABC0-CD4143155EF6

P2888

Q39201867-66A728A5-A340-45E2-9173-B27AE80C4505

P304

Q39201867-6C52F628-7295-4391-A336-5FF8CD6E8531

P31

Q39201867-A302F460-5037-43DA-B5AE-5F5E61278635

P356

Q39201867-71E85955-01E2-4A81-8126-D8137C46B3BC

P433

Q39201867-6EE1FCF0-A2F7-484E-8476-BE85AEBF1244

P478

Q39201867-DCF80B81-8E50-4C4C-85D9-8CD80465B0DD

P577

Q39201867-B16532B1-91DF-4A58-8121-9223C86816CF

P6179

Q39201867-29D9E67D-14D9-4737-A184-EEE2061EB4D5

P698

Q39201867-5F165401-C73E-4503-97C6-29C59924BDC5

P356

S10434-012-2848-7

P1433

Annals of Surgical Oncology

P1476

Assessment and comparison of r ...... loratory study in two centers.

@en

P2093

A D Hollowood

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

C G Streets

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

C P Barham

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

D R Titcomb

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

J M Blazeby

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

N S Blencowe

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

R G Berrisford

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

R Krysztopik

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

R Parameswaran

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

S A Wajed

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis.

Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial.

Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be diffic

Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic review.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial.

Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

Health-related quality of life after minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

Short-term outcomes following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living.

The learning curve for the laparoscopic approach to conservative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons drawn from a single institution's experience.

P2888

s10434-012-2848-7

P304

1970-1977

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P356

10.1245/S10434-012-2848-7

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P433

6

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

20

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P577

2013-01-11T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P6179

1051175580

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P698

23306956

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string