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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21584385)

  • 1. Evaluation of single-use reprocessed laparoscopic instrument sterilization.
    Lopes Cde L; Graziano KU; Pinto Tde J
    Rev Lat Am Enfermagem; 2011; 19(2):370-7. PubMed ID: 21584385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Decontaminated single-use devices: an oxymoron that may be placing patients at risk for cross-contamination.
    Heeg P; Roth K; Reichl R; Cogdill CP; Bond WW
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2001 Sep; 22(9):542-9. PubMed ID: 11732782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a comparative cost analysis.
    Schaer GN; Koechli OR; Haller U
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1995 Dec; 173(6):1812-5. PubMed ID: 8610767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Adler S; Scherrer M; Rückauer KD; Daschner FD
    Surg Endosc; 2005 Feb; 19(2):268-72. PubMed ID: 15580444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Inadequacy of manual cleaning for reprocessing single-use, triple-lumen sphinctertomes: simulated-use testing comparing manual with automated cleaning methods.
    Alfa MJ; Nemes R
    Am J Infect Control; 2003 Jun; 31(4):193-207. PubMed ID: 12806356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Gas and steam sterilization of assembled versus disassembled laparoscopic equipment. Microbiologic studies.
    Marshburn PB; Rutala WA; Wannamaker NS; Hulka JF
    J Reprod Med; 1991 Jul; 36(7):483-7. PubMed ID: 1834836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety.
    Siu J; Hill AG; MacCormick AD
    ANZ J Surg; 2017 Jan; 87(1-2):28-33. PubMed ID: 27878921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A prospective comparison of the costs of reusable and limited-reuse laparoscopic instruments.
    DesCôteaux JG; Blackmore K; Parsons L
    Can J Surg; 1998 Apr; 41(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 9575997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a reusable double-channel sphincterotome.
    Lee RM; Vida F; Kozarek RA; Raltz SL; Ball TJ; Patterson DJ; Brandabur JJ; Gluck M; Tomas A; Sumida SE; Irizarry D; Jane C
    Gastrointest Endosc; 1999 Apr; 49(4 Pt 1):477-82. PubMed ID: 10202062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cleaning of blood-contaminated reprocessed angiographic catheters and spinal needles.
    Penna TC; Ferraz CA
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2000 Aug; 21(8):499-504. PubMed ID: 10968714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Steam sterilization of laparoscopic instruments.
    Voyles CR; Sanders DL; Simons JE; McVey EA; Wilson WB
    Surg Laparosc Endosc; 1995 Apr; 5(2):139-41. PubMed ID: 7773462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Apelgren KN; Blank ML; Slomski CA; Hadjis NS
    Surg Endosc; 1994 Jan; 8(1):32-4. PubMed ID: 8153862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Microbiological evaluation of the steam sterilization of assembled laparoscopic instruments.
    Camargo TC; Graziano KU; Almeida AG; Suzuki K; Silva CB; Pinto FM
    Rev Lat Am Enfermagem; 2016 Nov; 24():e2830. PubMed ID: 27878222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Sterile and economic instrumentation in laparoscopic surgery. Experiences with 6,000 surgical laparoscopies, 1990-1996.
    Fengler TW; Pahlke H; Kraas E
    Surg Endosc; 1998 Oct; 12(10):1275-9. PubMed ID: 9745072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. In vitro evaluation of wire integrity and ability to reprocess single-use sphincterotomes.
    Kozarek RA; Sumida SE; Raltz SL; Merriam LD; Irizarry DC
    Gastrointest Endosc; 1997 Feb; 45(2):117-21. PubMed ID: 9040994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Manual methods are suboptimal compared with automated methods for cleaning of single-use biopsy forceps.
    Alfa MJ; Nemes R; Olson N; Mulaire A
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 27(8):841-6. PubMed ID: 16874645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Disposable and reusable trocars.
    Watson DI
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):140-2. PubMed ID: 7552131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Single-use trocar: is it possible to reprocess it after the first use?
    dos Santos VS; Zilberstein B; Possari JF; dos Santos MA; Quintanilha AG; Ribeiro U
    Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech; 2008 Oct; 18(5):464-8. PubMed ID: 18936667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Single-patient-use laparoscopic instrumentation: a company perspective.
    Straface S
    Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):135-9. PubMed ID: 7552130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.