Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:3979278rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0026837lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3979278lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1579762lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3979278lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0009491lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3979278lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0443220lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3979278lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0231517lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:issue12lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:dateCreated1985-5-9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:abstractTextThe customary rigid rectoscope was compared prospectively, with a new, flexible one (prototypes of Olympus Opt. and Fuji) in each of 114 patients selected at random. Maximal depth of introduction was reached on average after 1 min with the rigid instruments, after 1 min 40 sec with the flexible one. Mean depth of introduction was 16 cm for the rigid and 33 cm for the flexible one. In 21 patients (18.4%) additional information was obtained with the flexible rectoscope. 80% of patients reported that the flexible instrument caused them no or only slight discomfort. Skill in using the flexible instrument can be quickly acquired.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:languagegerlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:monthMarlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:issn0012-0472lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ClassenMMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PhillipJJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KnyrimKKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HerterBBlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:day22lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:volume110lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:pagination445-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:dateRevised2008-11-21lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3979278-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3979278-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3979278-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3979278-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3979278-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:year1985lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:articleTitle[Rectoscopy: rigid or flexible? A comparative study].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3979278pubmed:publicationTypeRandomized Controlled Triallld:pubmed