These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19785946)

  • 41. ["Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic surgery--a controlled study"].
    Engert K
    Zentralbl Chir; 1995; 120(5):416. PubMed ID: 7610732
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Examining variation in cost based on surgeon choices for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Adkins HH; Hardacker TJ; Ceppa EP
    Surg Endosc; 2016 Jul; 30(7):2679-84. PubMed ID: 26487210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Technical and economic feasibility of reusing disposable perfusion cannulae.
    Bloom DF; Cornhill JF; Malchesky PS; Richardson DM; Bolsen KA; Haire DM; Loop FD; Cosgrove DM
    Biomed Instrum Technol; 1997; 31(3):248-9. PubMed ID: 9181243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comparison of costs for disposable and reusable syringes and needles in Siriraj Hospital.
    Danchaivijitr S; Chuenarom W; Kachintorn K; Tangtrakul T
    J Med Assoc Thai; 1992 Mar; 75 Suppl 2():11-5. PubMed ID: 1402493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective cost evaluation.
    Deprez PH; Horsmans Y; Van Hassel M; Hoang P; Piessevaux H; Geubel A
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):262-5. PubMed ID: 10699768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Durability and function of disposable versus reusable laparoscopic instrumentation.
    Bessell JR; Patkin M; Isabel L
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):143-6. PubMed ID: 7552132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Reusable, re-posable and disposable instrumentation.
    Melzer A; Buess G
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):127-8. PubMed ID: 7552127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Evaluating Surgeons on Intraoperative Disposable Supply Costs: Details Matter.
    Childers CP; Hofer IS; Cheng DS; Maggard-Gibbons M
    J Gastrointest Surg; 2019 Oct; 23(10):2054-2062. PubMed ID: 30097965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A close-up look at laparoscopic instrument costs.
    Mater Manag Health Care; 1993 Nov; 2(11):28-32. PubMed ID: 10171719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Cost and outcomes of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Mongolia.
    Lombardo S; Rosenberg JS; Kim J; Erdene S; Sergelen O; Nellermoe J; Finlayson SR; Price RR
    J Surg Res; 2018 Sep; 229():186-191. PubMed ID: 29936988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic disposable versus nondisposable infraumbilical cannulas.
    Ransom SB; McNeeley SG; White C; Diamond MP
    J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc; 1996 Nov; 4(1):25-8. PubMed ID: 9050707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Cholecystectomy: costs and health-related quality of life: a comparison of two techniques.
    Nilsson E; Ros A; Rahmqvist M; Bäckman K; Carlsson P
    Int J Qual Health Care; 2004 Dec; 16(6):473-82. PubMed ID: 15557357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Reusable vs. disposable laparoscopic instruments.
    Voyles CR
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1993 Sep; 78(9):38-9. PubMed ID: 10128066
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Cost-minimization analysis of jumbo reusable forceps versus disposable forceps in a high-volume ambulatory endoscopy center.
    Hogan RB; Santa-Cruz R; Weeks ES; Alexander L; Hogan RB
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2009 Feb; 69(2):284-8. PubMed ID: 18725156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Re-sterilization of disposable products: a gamble].
    Haindl H
    Pflege Z; 2002 Feb; 55(2):91-4. PubMed ID: 12640997
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Biopsy forceps: disposable or reusable?
    Muscarella LF
    Gastroenterol Nurs; 2001; 24(2):64-8. PubMed ID: 11847729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Technical and economic feasibility of reusing disposable perfusion cannulas.
    Bloom DF; Cornhill JF; Malchesky PS; Richardson DM; Bolsen KA; Haire DM; Loop FD; Cosgrove DM
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1997 Sep; 114(3):448-60. PubMed ID: 9305199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis at Rwanda Military Hospital.
    Silverstein A; Costas-Chavarri A; Gakwaya MR; Lule J; Mukhopadhyay S; Meara JG; Shrime MG
    World J Surg; 2017 May; 41(5):1225-1233. PubMed ID: 27905020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Does Cost Influence the Choice of Disposable Versus Reusable Instruments? Mailed Survey of Obstetrician/Gynaecologists.
    Yang H; Capstick VA; Bentz C; Ross S
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2019 Oct; 41(10):1416-1422. PubMed ID: 30885506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A cost analysis of reusable and disposable flexible optical scopes for intubation.
    Tvede MF; Kristensen MS; Nyhus-Andreasen M
    Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 2012 May; 56(5):577-84. PubMed ID: 22338623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.