153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22247802)
1. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial?
Soto E; Lo Y; Friedman K; Soto C; Nezhat F; Chuang L; Gretz H
J Gynecol Oncol; 2011 Dec; 22(4):253-9. PubMed ID: 22247802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2010; 10(27):1-118. PubMed ID: 23074405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An analysis of the impact of previous laparoscopic hysterectomy experience on the learning curve for robotic hysterectomy.
Eddib A; Jain N; Aalto M; Hughes S; Eswar A; Erk M; Michalik C; Krovi V; Singhal P
J Robot Surg; 2013 Sep; 7(3):295-9. PubMed ID: 27000926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Cost comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Winter ML; Leu SY; Lagrew DC; Bustillo G
J Robot Surg; 2015 Dec; 9(4):269-75. PubMed ID: 26530837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Implementation of a robotic surgical program in gynaecological oncology and comparison with prior laparoscopic series.
Povolotskaya N; Woolas R; Brinkmann D
Int J Surg Oncol; 2015; 2015():814315. PubMed ID: 25785195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Longer Operative Time During Benign Laparoscopic and Robotic Hysterectomy Is Associated With Increased 30-Day Perioperative Complications.
Catanzarite T; Saha S; Pilecki MA; Kim JY; Milad MP
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2015; 22(6):1049-58. PubMed ID: 26070725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative analysis of vaginal versus robotic-assisted hysterectomy for benign indications.
Jacome EG; Hebert AE; Christian F
J Robot Surg; 2013 Mar; 7(1):39-46. PubMed ID: 27000891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A Comparison of Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted, Single-Site Laparoscopy Versus Laparoendoscopic Single Site for Benign Hysterectomy.
Lopez S; Mulla ZD; Hernandez L; Garza DM; Payne TN; Farnam RW
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):84-8. PubMed ID: 26321172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer.
Lim PC; Kang E; Park DH
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(6):739-48. PubMed ID: 20955983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications-surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies.
Baracy MG; Martinez M; Hagglund K; Afzal F; Kulkarni S; Corey L; Aslam MF
J Robot Surg; 2022 Oct; 16(5):1199-1207. PubMed ID: 34981444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications.
Lim PC; Crane JT; English EJ; Farnam RW; Garza DM; Winter ML; Rozeboom JL
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Jun; 133(3):359-64. PubMed ID: 26952352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Long-term satisfaction of patients after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy.
Gitas G; Alkatout I; Proppe L; Hanker L; Allahqoli L; Grimbizis G; Rody A; Werner N; Sommer S; Baum S
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Jun; 305(6):1481-1490. PubMed ID: 34954814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Perioperative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy with mini-laparotomy versus open hysterectomy for uterus weighing more than 250 g.
Gupta N; Mohling S; Mckendrick R; Elkattah R; Holcombe J; Furr RS; Boren T; DePasquale S
J Robot Surg; 2018 Dec; 12(4):641-645. PubMed ID: 29453729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Surgical outcomes of conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy.
Gitas G; Alkatout I; Proppe L; Werner N; Rody A; Hanker L; Pados G; Freytag D; Sommer S; Baum S
Int J Med Robot; 2021 Jun; 17(3):e2225. PubMed ID: 33440062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Classification of Postoperative Complications in Robotic-assisted Compared With Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer.
Barrie A; Freeman AH; Lyon L; Garcia C; Conell C; Abbott LH; Littell RD; Powell CB
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(7):1181-1188. PubMed ID: 27621195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Robotic Single-Site and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of a Matched Case-Control Study.
El Hachem L; Andikyan V; Mathews S; Friedman K; Poeran J; Shieh K; Geoghegan M; Gretz HF
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(5):760-8. PubMed ID: 26992935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy utilizing a robotic surgical system.
Beste TM; Nelson KH; Daucher JA
JSLS; 2005; 9(1):13-5. PubMed ID: 15791963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Robot assisted endometrial cancer staging - evaluation the first 100 operations and comparing the first andthe last 30 operations].
Marek R; Dzvinčuk P; Kudela M; Hambálek P; Maděrka M; Zapletalová J; Pilka R
Ceska Gynekol; 2015 Oct; 80(5):324-32. PubMed ID: 26606116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
