Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:3577461rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0007874lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3577461lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0195324lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3577461lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2603343lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3577461lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0868928lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3577461lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0665509lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:issue1lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:dateCreated1987-5-28lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:abstractTextIn the years 1968 till 1982, 900 conisations of uterine cervix were performed, 90% of which were diagnostic interventions. During the follow-up period, the mean age of the patients with carcinoma in situ decreased 4 years, the mean age from patients with microcarcinoma 3.2 years. In 64% the conisation was carried out due to a positive or suspekt smear. Conisations, performed during pregnancy, were not associated with any additional complications for mother or child. Taking a big conus resulted more often in a total extirpation of the neoplastic changes, without increasing the complication rate. The average hospital stay was 8.7 days. It was only prolonged in patients with secondary hemorrhage. 33% of all neoplastic changes were extirpated totally. In 85% of the women who had follow-up only after incomplete extirpation of the neoplasia by conisation, there was no recurrence. The rest did show the neoplasia again, often in a more serious way. The overall complication-rate was 7.4%.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:languagegerlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:issn0044-4197lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Hohlweg-Majer...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HettenbachAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KüblerH CHClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:volume109lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:pagination36-41lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:dateRevised2008-2-11lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3577461-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:year1987lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:articleTitle[Conization of the uterine cervix. A study of 900 cases].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3577461pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed