144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20079897)
1. A randomized controlled study comparing carbon dioxide versus normal saline as distension media in diagnostic office hysteroscopy: is the distension with carbon dioxide a problem?
Raimondo G; Raimondo D; D'Aniello G; Russo C; Ronga A; Gabbanini M; Filippeschi M; Petraglia F; Florio P
Fertil Steril; 2010 Nov; 94(6):2319-22. PubMed ID: 20079897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Office vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in infertile women: effects of gynecologist experience, instrument size, and distention medium on patient discomfort.
Pluchino N; Ninni F; Angioni S; Artini P; Araujo VG; Massimetti G; Genazzani AR; Cela V
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(3):344-50. PubMed ID: 20417426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Carbon dioxide in office diagnostic hysteroscopy: An open question. A multicenter randomized trial on 1982 procedures.
Tagliaferri V; Ricciardi L; Ricciardi R; Pinto LR; Lanzone A; Scambia G; Guido M
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2019 Apr; 235():97-101. PubMed ID: 30287097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of carbon dioxide and normal saline for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy.
Nagele F; Bournas N; O'Connor H; Broadbent M; Richardson R; Magos A
Fertil Steril; 1996 Feb; 65(2):305-9. PubMed ID: 8566253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Randomised comparison of distension media for outpatient hysteroscopy.
Shankar M; Davidson A; Taub N; Habiba M
BJOG; 2004 Jan; 111(1):57-62. PubMed ID: 14687053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Carbon dioxide versus normal saline as a uterine distension medium for diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in infertile patients: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.
Pellicano M; Guida M; Zullo F; Lavitola G; Cirillo D; Nappi C
Fertil Steril; 2003 Feb; 79(2):418-21. PubMed ID: 12568856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Carbon dioxide versus normal saline as distension medium for diagnostic hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Craciunas L; Sajid MS; Howell R
Fertil Steril; 2013 Dec; 100(6):1709-14.e1-4. PubMed ID: 24011611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Carbon dioxide versus normal saline in outpatient hysteroscopy.
Litta P; Bonora M; Pozzan C; Merlin F; Sacco G; Fracas M; Capobianco G; Dessole S
Hum Reprod; 2003 Nov; 18(11):2446-9. PubMed ID: 14585899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Selecting distending medium for out-patient hysteroscopy. Does it really matter?
Paschopoulos M; Kaponis A; Makrydimas G; Zikopoulos K; Alamanos Y; O'Donovan P; Paraskevaidis E
Hum Reprod; 2004 Nov; 19(11):2619-25. PubMed ID: 15459167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Practicability of panoramic hysteroscopy with CO2. Clinical experience: 923 cases].
Busquets M; Lemus M
Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol; 1993; 58(2):113-8. PubMed ID: 8209037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Use of carbon dioxide versus normal saline for diagnostic hysteroscopy.
Brusco GF; Arena S; Angelini A
Fertil Steril; 2003 Apr; 79(4):993-7. PubMed ID: 12749443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Hysteroscopic dissemination of endometrial carcinoma using carbon dioxide and normal saline: a retrospective study.
Lo KW; Cheung TH; Yim SF; Chung TK
Gynecol Oncol; 2002 Mar; 84(3):394-8. PubMed ID: 11855876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Endometrial cell dissemination at diagnostic hysteroscopy: a prospective randomized cross-over comparison of normal saline and carbon dioxide uterine distension.
Nagele F; Wieser F; Deery A; Hart R; Magos A
Hum Reprod; 1999 Nov; 14(11):2739-42. PubMed ID: 10548613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Office hysteroscopy and adenomyosis.
Molinas CR; Campo R
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol; 2006 Aug; 20(4):557-67. PubMed ID: 16554185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Long-term complications of office hysteroscopy: analysis of 1028 cases.
van Kerkvoorde TC; Veersema S; Timmermans A
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2012; 19(4):494-7. PubMed ID: 22564927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Hysteroscopy: a technique for all? Analysis of 5,000 outpatient hysteroscopies.
Di Spiezio Sardo A; Taylor A; Tsirkas P; Mastrogamvrakis G; Sharma M; Magos A
Fertil Steril; 2008 Feb; 89(2):438-43. PubMed ID: 17482613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Six thousand office diagnostic-operative hysteroscopies.
Perez-Medina T; Bajo JM; Martinez-Cortes L; Castellanos P; Perez de Avila I
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2000 Oct; 71(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 11044539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pain in diagnostic hysteroscopy: a multivariate analysis after a randomized, controlled trial.
Mazzon I; Favilli A; Grasso M; Horvath S; Bini V; Di Renzo GC; Gerli S
Fertil Steril; 2014 Nov; 102(5):1398-403. PubMed ID: 25241369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Office hysteroscopy: comparison of 2.7- and 4-mm hysteroscopes for acceptability, feasibility and diagnostic accuracy.
Rullo S; Sorrenti G; Marziali M; Ermini B; Sesti F; Piccione E
J Reprod Med; 2005 Jan; 50(1):45-8. PubMed ID: 15730173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy].
Agostini A; Crochet P; Blanc K; Collette E; Cravello L; Blanc B
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2006 May; 34(5):420-2. PubMed ID: 16690342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
