380 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18929400)
1. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.
Ko EM; Muto MG; Berkowitz RS; Feltmate CM
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Dec; 111(3):425-30. PubMed ID: 18929400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: A multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer.
Sert BM; Boggess JF; Ahmad S; Jackson AL; Stavitzski NM; Dahl AA; Holloway RW
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2016 Apr; 42(4):513-22. PubMed ID: 26843445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
Steed H; Rosen B; Murphy J; Laframboise S; De Petrillo D; Covens A
Gynecol Oncol; 2004 Jun; 93(3):588-93. PubMed ID: 15196849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience.
Cantrell LA; Mendivil A; Gehrig PA; Boggess JF
Gynecol Oncol; 2010 May; 117(2):260-5. PubMed ID: 20153886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a case control study.
Vizza E; Corrado G; Mancini E; Vici P; Sergi D; Baiocco E; Patrizi L; Saltari M; Pomati G; Cutillo G
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2015 Jan; 41(1):142-7. PubMed ID: 24063966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Robotics versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a multicenter study.
Tinelli R; Malzoni M; Cosentino F; Perone C; Fusco A; Cicinelli E; Nezhat F
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Sep; 18(9):2622-8. PubMed ID: 21394663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study.
Kim YT; Kim SW; Hyung WJ; Lee SJ; Nam EJ; Lee WJ
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Feb; 108(2):312-6. PubMed ID: 18035405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy.
Boggess JF; Gehrig PA; Cantrell L; Shafer A; Ridgway M; Skinner EN; Fowler WC
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Oct; 199(4):357.e1-7. PubMed ID: 18928973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A retrospective analysis of radical hysterectomies done for cervical cancer: is there a role for the Pfannenstiel incision?
Scribner DR; Kamelle SA; Gould N; Tillmanns T; Wilson MA; McMeekin S; Gold MA; Mannel RS
Gynecol Oncol; 2001 Jun; 81(3):481-4. PubMed ID: 11371142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer in the elderly: is laparoscopy feasible?
Scribner DR; Walker JL; Johnson GA; McMeekin SD; Gold MA; Mannel RS
Gynecol Oncol; 2001 Dec; 83(3):563-8. PubMed ID: 11733973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study.
Corrado G; Fanfani F; Ghezzi F; Fagotti A; Uccella S; Mancini E; Sperduti I; Stevenazzi G; Scambia G; Vizza E
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2015 Jan; 41(1):136-41. PubMed ID: 25468748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
Jin YM; Liu SS; Chen J; Chen YN; Ren CC
PLoS One; 2018; 13(3):e0193033. PubMed ID: 29554090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Survival rate comparisons amongst cervical cancer patients treated with an open, robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: A five year experience.
Mendivil AA; Rettenmaier MA; Abaid LN; Brown JV; Micha JP; Lopez KL; Goldstein BH
Surg Oncol; 2016 Mar; 25(1):66-71. PubMed ID: 26409687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Robotic radical hysterectomy: Technical aspects.
Magrina JF; Kho R; Magtibay PM
Gynecol Oncol; 2009 Apr; 113(1):28-31. PubMed ID: 19176237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Is laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma safe? A case control study with follow up.
Morgan DJ; Hunter DC; McCracken G; McClelland HR; Price JH; Dobbs SP
BJOG; 2007 May; 114(5):537-42. PubMed ID: 17355358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
