Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 6

1.

Impact of surgeon demographics and technique on outcomes after esophageal resections: a nationwide study.

Gopaldas RR, Bhamidipati CM, Dao TK, Markley JG.

Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Mar;95(3):1064-9. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.10.038. Epub 2012 Dec 20.

PMID:
23261119
2.

Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000-2011.

Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Low DE.

J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 May;16(5):1055-63. doi: 10.1007/s11605-011-1731-3. Epub 2011 Nov 17. Review.

PMID:
22089950
3.

The relationship between volume or surgeon specialty and outcome in the surgical treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

von Meyenfeldt EM, Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Post PN, van de Velde CJ, Tollenaar RA, Klomp HM, Wouters MW.

J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Jul;7(7):1170-8. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318257cc45. Review.

4.

[Is the surgeon still the main prognosis factor?].

Rivoire M, Dupré A.

Bull Cancer. 2013 Oct;100(10):973-81. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2013.1828. Review. French.

PMID:
24103859
5.

Feasibility of Comparing the Results of Pancreatic Resections between Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pancreatic Resections.

Gurusamy K, Toon C, Virendrakumar B, Morris S, Davidson B.

HPB Surg. 2015;2015:896875. doi: 10.1155/2015/896875. Epub 2015 Aug 17. Review.

6.

The Aging Surgeon: Implications for the Workforce, the Surgeon, and the Patient.

Schenarts PJ, Cemaj S.

Surg Clin North Am. 2016 Feb;96(1):129-38. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2015.09.009. Review.

PMID:
26612025
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk