Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:8322345rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0031150lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8322345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0009491lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8322345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0449851lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8322345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0023981lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8322345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0336791lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8322345lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0178932lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:issue16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:dateCreated1993-8-3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:abstractTextDuring the first two years of laparoscopic surgery altogether 200 cholecystectomy and 40 appendectomy patients were included in prospective, comparative studies. The stay in hospital averaged two days after laparoscopic versus seven days after open cholecystectomy. Days away from work postoperatively averaged nine days after laparoscopic, versus 28 days after open cholecystectomy. After appendectomy, the stay in hospital was reduced from three to one day and absence from work from 14 days in the open surgery group to seven days in the laparoscopic group. Clear advantages have thus been documented in the groups with mini-invasive treatment, since only 5% experienced postoperative complications after laparoscopic treatment, as against 11% after open cholecystectomy (p < 0.02).lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:languagenorlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:issn0029-2001lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RaederM GMGlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HøgevoldH EHElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BuanesTTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:day20lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:volume113lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:pagination1978-81lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:dateRevised2008-7-16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8322345-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:year1993lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:articleTitle[Prospective comparative studies as tools for quality assurance. Important when laparoscopic techniques are introduced].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:affiliationGastroenterologisk avdeling, Kirurgisk klinikk, Ullevål sykehus, Oslo.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8322345pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed