1604 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18439499)
1. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice.
Payne TN; Dauterive FR
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2008; 15(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 18439499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs.
Advincula AP; Xu X; Goudeau S; Ransom SB
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(6):698-705. PubMed ID: 17980329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy?
Seamon LG; Cohn DE; Henretta MS; Kim KH; Carlson MJ; Phillips GS; Fowler JM
Gynecol Oncol; 2009 Apr; 113(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 19168206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?
Lenihan JP; Kovanda C; Seshadri-Kreaden U
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2008; 15(5):589-94. PubMed ID: 18722971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study.
Sarlos D; Kots L; Stevanovic N; Schaer G
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2010 May; 150(1):92-6. PubMed ID: 20207063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.
Bell MC; Torgerson J; Seshadri-Kreaden U; Suttle AW; Hunt S
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Dec; 111(3):407-11. PubMed ID: 18829091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.
DeNardis SA; Holloway RW; Bigsby GE; Pikaart DP; Ahmad S; Finkler NJ
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Dec; 111(3):412-7. PubMed ID: 18834620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes.
Fiorentino RP; Zepeda MA; Goldstein BH; John CR; Rettenmaier MA
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2006; 13(1):60-3. PubMed ID: 16431325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Nawfal AK; Orady M; Eisenstein D; Wegienka G
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2011; 18(3):328-32. PubMed ID: 21411379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.
Lowe MP; Chamberlain DH; Kamelle SA; Johnson PR; Tillmanns TD
Gynecol Oncol; 2009 May; 113(2):191-4. PubMed ID: 19249082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
Estape R; Lambrou N; Diaz R; Estape E; Dunkin N; Rivera A
Gynecol Oncol; 2009 Jun; 113(3):357-61. PubMed ID: 19345987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with traditional hysterectomy for cost-effectiveness to employers.
Lenihan JP; Kovanda C; Cammarano C
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jun; 190(6):1714-20; discussion 1720-2. PubMed ID: 15284779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes.
Benway BM; Bhayani SB; Rogers CG; Dulabon LM; Patel MN; Lipkin M; Wang AJ; Stifelman MD
J Urol; 2009 Sep; 182(3):866-72. PubMed ID: 19616229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer.
Lim PC; Kang E; Park DH
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(6):739-48. PubMed ID: 20955983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients.
Stepanian AA; Miklos JR; Moore RD; Mattox TF
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2008; 15(2):188-96. PubMed ID: 18312989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
Magrina JF; Kho RM; Weaver AL; Montero RP; Magtibay PM
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Apr; 109(1):86-91. PubMed ID: 18279944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality?
Nezhat C; Lavie O; Lemyre M; Unal E; Nezhat CH; Nezhat F
Fertil Steril; 2009 Jun; 91(6):2620-2. PubMed ID: 18656185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of the impact of body mass index on the surgical outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy.
George A; Eisenstein D; Wegienka G
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2009; 16(6):730-3. PubMed ID: 19896599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Histologic artifacts in abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomy specimens: a blinded, retrospective review.
Krizova A; Clarke BA; Bernardini MQ; James S; Kalloger SE; Boerner SL; Mulligan AM
Am J Surg Pathol; 2011 Jan; 35(1):115-26. PubMed ID: 21164295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of survival after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with the conventional abdominal approach for early-stage endometrial carcinoma: a review of the literature.
Gil-Moreno A; Díaz-Feijoo B; Morchón S; Xercavins J
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2006; 13(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 16431320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
