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 *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28505289)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. COVID-19 Solutions Are Climate Solutions: Lessons From Reusable Gowns.
    Baker N; Bromley-Dulfano R; Chan J; Gupta A; Herman L; Jain N; Taylor AL; Lu J; Pannu J; Patel L; Prunicki M
    Front Public Health; 2020; 8():590275. PubMed ID: 33330335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint.
    Bertolo R; Gilioli V; Veccia A; Malandra S; Dal Corso L; Fenzi D; Mazzetto F; Antonelli A
    Urology; 2024 Jun; 188():70-76. PubMed ID: 38499187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy.
    Yang R; Ng S; Nichol M; Laine L
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):266-70. PubMed ID: 10699769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Editorial Comment on "Institutional Micro-cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint".
    Zampini AM
    Urology; 2024 Jun; 188():77. PubMed ID: 38648948
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Carbon Footprint in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impact of Reusable and Single-Use Ureteroscopes.
    Davis NF; McGrath S; Quinlan M; Jack G; Lawrentschuk N; Bolton DM
    J Endourol; 2018 Mar; 32(3):214-217. PubMed ID: 29373918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Reply to Editorial Comment on "Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs. Single-Use Cystoscopes with assessment of environmental footprint".
    Bertolo R; Veccia A; Antonelli A
    Urology; 2024 Jun; 188():78-79. PubMed ID: 38719114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. [A comparative cost analysis of single-use versus reusable fiberoptic bronchoscopes: Is single-use fiberscope worth it?].
    Videau M; Rghioui K; Mottet B; Sainfort A; Lefort I
    Ann Pharm Fr; 2017 Nov; 75(6):473-479. PubMed ID: 28818319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Infection control.
    Holland R
    Anaesth Intensive Care; 1996 Oct; 24(5):619. PubMed ID: 8909684
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The green operating room: simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint.
    Wormer BA; Augenstein VA; Carpenter CL; Burton PV; Yokeley WT; Prabhu AS; Harris B; Norton S; Klima DA; Lincourt AE; Heniford BT
    Am Surg; 2013 Jul; 79(7):666-71. PubMed ID: 23815997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula.
    Donahue LM; Hilton S; Bell SG; Williams BC; Keoleian GA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):225.e1-225.e7. PubMed ID: 32067971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Environmental Impact of Flexible Cystoscopy: A Comparative Analysis Between Carbon Footprint of Isiris
    Jahrreiss V; Sarrot P; Davis NF; Somani B
    J Endourol; 2024 Apr; 38(4):386-394. PubMed ID: 38185843
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of the Costs of Reusable Versus Disposable Equipment for Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Procedures Using Activity-Based Costing Analysis.
    Voigt J; Seigerman D; Lutsky K; Beredjiklian P; Leinberry C
    J Hand Surg Am; 2021 Apr; 46(4):339.e1-339.e15. PubMed ID: 33191039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Cost analysis comparing single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and conventional reusable fiberoptic flexible scopes for difficult tracheal intubation].
    Aïssou M; Coroir M; Debes C; Camus T; Hadri N; Gutton C; Beaussier M
    Ann Fr Anesth Reanim; 2013 May; 32(5):291-5. PubMed ID: 23561716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. "Single use only" labelling of medical devices: always essential or sometimes spurious?
    Stewart I
    Med J Aust; 1997 Nov; 167(10):538-9. PubMed ID: 9397042
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.