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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

324 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22080872)

  • 1. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: no.
    Lotan Y
    Curr Opin Urol; 2012 Jan; 22(1):66-9. PubMed ID: 22080872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures in urologic surgery in the USA.
    Sleeper J; Lotan Y
    Expert Rev Med Devices; 2011 Jan; 8(1):97-103. PubMed ID: 21158544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Economics of robotics in urology.
    Lotan Y
    Curr Opin Urol; 2010 Jan; 20(1):92-7. PubMed ID: 19875963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: yes.
    Liberman D; Trinh QD; Jeldres C; Zorn KC
    Curr Opin Urol; 2012 Jan; 22(1):61-5. PubMed ID: 22037320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Editorial comment on: Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate.
    Fornara P; Greco F
    Eur Urol; 2009 Nov; 56(5):858. PubMed ID: 19359090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: recent advances in urology.
    Autorino R; Zargar H; Kaouk JH
    Fertil Steril; 2014 Oct; 102(4):939-49. PubMed ID: 24993800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study.
    Sarlos D; Kots L; Stevanovic N; Schaer G
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2010 May; 150(1):92-6. PubMed ID: 20207063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Paediatric robotic surgery in clinical practice: a cost analysis.
    Anderberg M; Kockum CC; Arnbjornsson E
    Eur J Pediatr Surg; 2009 Oct; 19(5):311-5. PubMed ID: 19830631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
    Judd JP; Siddiqui NY; Barnett JC; Visco AG; Havrilesky LJ; Wu JM
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(4):493-9. PubMed ID: 20621010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.
    Hohwü L; Borre M; Ehlers L; Venborg Pedersen K
    J Med Econ; 2011; 14(4):403-9. PubMed ID: 21604962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive?
    Rowe CK; Pierce MW; Tecci KC; Houck CS; Mandell J; Retik AB; Nguyen HT
    J Endourol; 2012 Jul; 26(7):871-7. PubMed ID: 22283146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Robotic surgery.
    Schreuder HW; Verheijen RH
    BJOG; 2009 Jan; 116(2):198-213. PubMed ID: 19076952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Robotic approaches to prolapse surgery.
    Rosenblum N
    Curr Opin Urol; 2012 Jul; 22(4):292-6. PubMed ID: 22647648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.
    Close A; Robertson C; Rushton S; Shirley M; Vale L; Ramsay C; Pickard R
    Eur Urol; 2013 Sep; 64(3):361-9. PubMed ID: 23498062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Developing a successful robotics program.
    Luthringer T; Aleksic I; Caire A; Albala DM
    Curr Opin Urol; 2012 Jan; 22(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 22037321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Randomized controlled trial of barbed polyglyconate versus polyglactin suture for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy anastomosis: technique and outcomes.
    Williams SB; Alemozaffar M; Lei Y; Hevelone N; Lipsitz SR; Plaster BA; Hu JC
    Eur Urol; 2010 Dec; 58(6):875-81. PubMed ID: 20708331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Costs in surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy: a review of the current state.
    Gianino MM; Galzerano M; Martin B; Chiadò Piat S; Gontero P
    Urol Int; 2012; 88(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 20453488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology.
    Merseburger AS; Herrmann TR; Shariat SF; Kyriazis I; Nagele U; Traxer O; Liatsikos EN;
    Eur Urol; 2013 Aug; 64(2):277-91. PubMed ID: 23764016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
    Bolenz C; Gupta A; Hotze T; Ho R; Cadeddu JA; Roehrborn CG; Lotan Y
    Eur Urol; 2010 Mar; 57(3):453-8. PubMed ID: 19931979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training.
    Patel HR; Linares A; Joseph JV
    Surg Oncol; 2009 Sep; 18(3):242-6. PubMed ID: 19560913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.