147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21892683)
1. Permanent suture used in uterosacral ligament suspension offers better anatomical support than delayed absorbable suture.
Chung CP; Miskimins R; Kuehl TJ; Yandell PM; Shull BL
Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Feb; 23(2):223-7. PubMed ID: 21892683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort of Absorbable and Permanent Suture Groups.
Bradley MS; Bickhaus JA; Amundsen CL; Newcomb LK; Truong T; Weidner AC; Siddiqui NY
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(3):207-212. PubMed ID: 28657988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension using delayed absorbable monofilament suture.
Wong MJ; Rezvan A; Bhatia NN; Yazdany T
Int Urogynecol J; 2011 Nov; 22(11):1389-94. PubMed ID: 21681596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension.
Kowalski JT; Genadry R; Ten Eyck P; Bradley CS
Int Urogynecol J; 2021 Apr; 32(4):785-790. PubMed ID: 32047968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Suture Complication Rates and Surgical Outcomes According to the Nonabsorbable Suture Materials Used in Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: Polyester versus Polypropylene.
Lee J; Oh S; Jeon MJ
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Aug; 28(8):1503-1507. PubMed ID: 33310165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Absorbable versus Permanent Suture for Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse.
Chill HH; Cohen-Milun G; Cohen A; Moss NP; Winer JD; Shveiky D
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Jun; 29(6):784-790. PubMed ID: 35283321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Is absorbable suture superior to permanent suture for uterosacral ligament suspension?
Peng L; Liu YH; He SX; Di XP; Shen H; Luo DY
Neurourol Urodyn; 2020 Sep; 39(7):1958-1965. PubMed ID: 32658368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Pollack BL; Popiel P; Toaff MC; Drugge E; Bielawski A; Sacks A; Bibi M; Friedman-Ciment R; LeBron K; Alishahian L; Phillips D; Rubino SR; Pollack S; Khan RS; Khan ES; Pape DM; Grimes CL
Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Feb; 141(2):268-283. PubMed ID: 36649334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation.
Kasturi S; Bentley-Taylor M; Woodman PJ; Terry CL; Hale DS
Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Jul; 23(7):941-5. PubMed ID: 22402640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?
Padoa A; Ziv Y; Tsviban A; Tomashev R; Smorgick N; Fligelman T
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2023 Apr; 283():112-117. PubMed ID: 36827752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture for Vaginal Mesh Fixation During Total Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Matthews CA; Geller EJ; Henley BR; Kenton K; Myers EM; Dieter AA; Parnell B; Lewicky-Gaupp C; Mueller MG; Wu JM
Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 136(2):355-364. PubMed ID: 32649494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Suture complications in a teaching institution among patients undergoing uterosacral ligament suspension with permanent braided suture.
Yazdany T; Yip S; Bhatia NN; Nguyen JN
Int Urogynecol J; 2010 Jul; 21(7):813-8. PubMed ID: 20186391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.
Turner LC; Lavelle ES; Shepherd JP
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 May; 27(5):797-803. PubMed ID: 26658893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Anterior Wall Success at 1 Year After Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension and Sacral Colpopexy.
Bastawros DA; Tarr ME; Templin MA; Stepp KJ; Taylor GB; Myers EM
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2020 Oct; 26(10):612-616. PubMed ID: 30394992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Functional and anatomic comparison of 2 versus 3 suture placement for uterosacral ligament suspension: a cadaver study.
Montoya TI; Dillon SJ; Balgobin S; Wai CY
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Nov; 209(5):486.e1-5. PubMed ID: 23770468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
Schulten SFM; Detollenaere RJ; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HWF
BMJ; 2019 Sep; 366():l5149. PubMed ID: 31506252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage.
Lavelle ES; Giugale LE; Winger DG; Wang L; Carter-Brooks CM; Shepherd JP
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jan; 218(1):116.e1-116.e5. PubMed ID: 28951262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Risk factors for ureteral occlusion during transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension.
Jackson E; Bilbao JA; Vera RW; Mulla ZD; Mallett VT; Montoya TI
Int Urogynecol J; 2015 Dec; 26(12):1809-14. PubMed ID: 26174656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A novel transvaginal approach to correct recurrent apical prolapse after failed sacral colpopexy: case series.
Bracken JN; Tran DH; Kuehl TJ; Larsen W; Yandell PM; Shull BL
Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Oct; 23(10):1429-33. PubMed ID: 22527557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension by using the cervix as a traction device.
Pal M; Bandyopadhyay S
Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Aug; 31(8):1701. PubMed ID: 32034457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
