457 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19499514)
1. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination.
Osser OV; Jokubkiene L; Valentin L
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Jul; 34(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 19499514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement.
Osser OV; Jokubkiene L; Valentin L
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2010 Jan; 35(1):75-83. PubMed ID: 20034000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors.
Ofili-Yebovi D; Ben-Nagi J; Sawyer E; Yazbek J; Lee C; Gonzalez J; Jurkovic D
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Jan; 31(1):72-7. PubMed ID: 18061960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position.
Wang CB; Chiu WW; Lee CY; Sun YL; Lin YH; Tseng CJ
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Jul; 34(1):85-9. PubMed ID: 19565535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study.
Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Aug; 42(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 23288683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Ultrasonographic analysis of cesarean scars features in nonpregnant uterus].
Zimmer M; Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Tomiałowicz M; Michniewicz J; Wiatrowski A; Mikołajczyk K
Ginekol Pol; 2007 Nov; 78(11):842-6. PubMed ID: 18306913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Sonographic imaging of cervical scars after Cesarean section.
Zimmer EZ; Bardin R; Tamir A; Bronshtein M
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jun; 23(6):594-8. PubMed ID: 15170802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial.
Vikhareva O; Rickle GS; Lavesson T; Nedopekina E; Brandell K; Salvesen KÅ
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Apr; 53(4):438-442. PubMed ID: 30484920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound.
Armstrong V; Hansen WF; Van Voorhis BJ; Syrop CH
Obstet Gynecol; 2003 Jan; 101(1):61-5. PubMed ID: 12517646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Changes in uterine flexion caused by cesarean section: correlation between post-flexion and deficient cesarean section scars.
Ryo E; Sakurai R; Kamata H; Seto M; Morita M; Ayabe T
J Med Ultrason (2001); 2016 Apr; 43(2):237-42. PubMed ID: 27033868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Transvaginal Sonographic Evaluation of Cesarean Section Scar Niche in Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Paskauskas S; Ramoniene G; Nadisauskiene RJ
Medicina (Kaunas); 2021 Oct; 57(10):. PubMed ID: 34684128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Morphology of the cesarean section scar in the non-pregnant uterus after one elective cesarean section.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(4):174-179. PubMed ID: 28509317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women.
Vikhareva Osser O; Valentin L
Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Mar; 117(3):525-532. PubMed ID: 21343754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Interest of saline contrast sonohysterography for the diagnosis of cesarean scar defects].
Giral E; Capmas P; Levaillant JM; Berman A; Fernandez H
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2015 Nov; 43(11):693-8. PubMed ID: 26603330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.
Hanacek J; Vojtech J; Urbankova I; Krcmar M; Křepelka P; Feyereisl J; Krofta L
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2020 Jan; 99(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 31441500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect.
Roberge S; Boutin A; Chaillet N; Moore L; Jastrow N; Demers S; Bujold E
Am J Perinatol; 2012 Jun; 29(6):465-71. PubMed ID: 22399223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cesarean Scar Thickness Decreases during Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Kliucinskas M; Paskauskas S
Medicina (Kaunas); 2022 Mar; 58(3):. PubMed ID: 35334583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Position and integrity of uterine scar are determined by degree of cervical dilatation at time of Cesarean section.
Kamel R; Eissa T; Sharaf M; Negm S; Thilaganathan B
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Mar; 57(3):466-470. PubMed ID: 32330331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section.
Vikhareva Osser O; Valentin L
BJOG; 2010 Aug; 117(9):1119-26. PubMed ID: 20604776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography.
Naji O; Abdallah Y; Bij De Vaate AJ; Smith A; Pexsters A; Stalder C; McIndoe A; Ghaem-Maghami S; Lees C; Brölmann HA; Huirne JA; Timmerman D; Bourne T
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Mar; 39(3):252-9. PubMed ID: 21858885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
