These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20471916)
1. Use of anti-skid material and patient-positioning to prevent patient shifting during robotic-assisted gynecologic procedures. Klauschie J; Wechter ME; Jacob K; Zanagnolo V; Montero R; Magrina J; Kho R J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(4):504-7. PubMed ID: 20471916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Trendelenburg position in gynecologic robotic-assisted surgery. Ghomi A; Kramer C; Askari R; Chavan NR; Einarsson JI J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2012; 19(4):485-9. PubMed ID: 22748954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing cephalad migration in robotic gynecologic surgery using egg-crate foam versus the Pink Pad Steck-Bayat KP; Henderson S; Aguirre AG; Smith RB; Mahnert NM; Gerkin RD; Mourad J J Robot Surg; 2020 Apr; 14(2):343-347. PubMed ID: 31256328 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of the Memory Foam Pad Versus the Bean Bag with Shoulder Braces in Preventing Patient Displacement during Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery. Farag S; Rosen L; Ascher-Walsh C J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018 Jan; 25(1):153-157. PubMed ID: 28919502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Evaluation of Positioning Devices for Optimization of Outcomes in Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery. Das D; Propst K; Wechter ME; Kho RM J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019 Feb; 26(2):244-252.e1. PubMed ID: 30176363 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Safety and Effectiveness of SAF-R, a Novel Patient Positioning Device for Robot-Assisted Pelvic Surgery in Trendelenburg Position. Talab SS; Elmi A; Sarma J; Barrisford GW; Tabatabaei S J Endourol; 2016 Mar; 30(3):286-92. PubMed ID: 26531773 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy--a retrospective matched control study. Nezhat C; Lavie O; Hsu S; Watson J; Barnett O; Lemyre M Fertil Steril; 2009 Feb; 91(2):556-9. PubMed ID: 18377901 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Robotic radical trachelectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical cancer: case series and description of technique. Burnett AF; Stone PJ; Duckworth LA; Roman JJ J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2009; 16(5):569-72. PubMed ID: 19835799 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]