View clinical trials related to Minimally Invasive.
Filter by:The investigators want to determine whether handholding improves patient satisfaction and reduce patient's anxiety during minimally invasive outpatient spine surgery with monitored anesthesia care.
A modified lateral lumbar interbody fusion VS. transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis with 2 year follow-up with a multiple center, randomized case-control study
the patient (n=60), with at least 3 composite resins with marginal defects , randomized into 3 groups A=Sealed with flow composite reinforced with nanofiller , B= Sealed with resin sealant , and C=Control, without intervention , and then assessed by the FDI criteria for clinical performance and longevity of restorations
Spinal canal anesthesia is marked the most commonly used method of cesarean section. Traditional spinal anesthesia may cause post-dural puncture headache and low back pain.Plenty of parturients are undergoing anticoagulation therapy.They may be forced to accept general anesthesia in order to avoid epidural hematoma.Therefore, we propose minimally invasive spinal anesthesia.
Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a technically complex procedure which is associated with high perioperative mortality, even in high volume centers[1]. To facilitate the postoperative recovery of esophagectomies patients by reducing surgical trauma, an increasing number of surgeons have attempted minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) to treat patients with esophageal cancer.[2-10] However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal method for performing an esophagectomy with the minimally invasive surgical technique. In addition, the benefit of this approach has not been well confirmed based on the limited retrospective comparative studies at the present time [3, 11-12], although its potential benefit improving the immediate postoperative including the total morbidity and pulmonary complication has been demonstrated by meta-analyses[13]. Especially it is unclear whether adding laparoscopic procedures in MIE can contribute to further improvement of the perioperative outcome of the patients.[3] Previously, the investigators have found that adding of laparoscopic procedure in performing the esophageal reconstruction procedure after VATS esophagectomy can provide further benefit in reducing the postoperative major complications and fasten the postoperative recovery16. For the most cases, the patients was receiving tri-incision esophagectomy, i.e. VATS esophagectomy in the chest, laparoscopic gastric mobilization in the abdomen and left cervical esophagogastrostomy. In such circumstances, a cervical incision was required for esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy and gastric mobilization. However, for the patients with lower-to mid third esophageal cancer, some surgeon performed Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, which performing the esophagogastrostomy in the chest after gastric mobilization without cervical incision wound. Although both of these procedures have been demonstrated to be feasible and safe, there is much debate about the advantage and disadvantage of these two approaches. For tri-incision esophagectomy, patients have the chance to have cervical lymph node dissection and the esophagus can be resected up to the neck. However, it is more time-consuming and associated with more surgical trauma by adding a cervical incisional wound and more tissue dissection around the cervical trachea as compared to that done by Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. In contrast, for the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, the resection of esophagus was limited to the level of thoracic inlet and cervical lymph node dissection was impossible unless a neck incision was further created. However, it takes less time in performing the whole procedure by saving a neck incision.