204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22323065)
1. Visibility and measurement of cesarean section scars in pregnancy: a reproducibility study.
Naji O; Daemen A; Smith A; Abdallah Y; Saso S; Stalder C; Sayasneh A; McIndoe A; Ghaem-Maghami S; Timmerman D; Bourne T
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Nov; 40(5):549-56. PubMed ID: 22323065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Transvaginal Sonographic Evaluation of Cesarean Section Scar Niche in Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Paskauskas S; Ramoniene G; Nadisauskiene RJ
Medicina (Kaunas); 2021 Oct; 57(10):. PubMed ID: 34684128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Changes in Cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study.
Naji O; Daemen A; Smith A; Abdallah Y; Saso S; Stalder C; Sayasneh A; McIndoe A; Ghaem-Maghami S; Timmerman D; Bourne T
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 May; 41(5):556-62. PubMed ID: 23108803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cesarean Scar Thickness Decreases during Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Kliucinskas M; Paskauskas S
Medicina (Kaunas); 2022 Mar; 58(3):. PubMed ID: 35334583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Assessment of Cesarean hysterotomy scar in non-pregnant women: reliability of transvaginal sonography with and without contrast enhancement.
Baranov A; Gunnarsson G; Salvesen KÅ; Isberg PE; Vikhareva O
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Apr; 47(4):499-505. PubMed ID: 25720922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reproducibility of assessment of full-dilatation Cesarean section scar in women undergoing second-trimester screening for preterm birth.
Banerjee A; Al-Dabbach Z; Bredaki FE; Casagrandi D; Tetteh A; Greenwold N; Ivan M; Jurkovic D; David AL; Napolitano R
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Sep; 60(3):396-403. PubMed ID: 35809243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography.
Naji O; Wynants L; Smith A; Abdallah Y; Stalder C; Sayasneh A; McIndoe A; Ghaem-Maghami S; Van Huffel S; Van Calster B; Timmerman D; Bourne T
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Jun; 41(6):672-8. PubMed ID: 23371440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound for the measurement of a niche in a caesarean scar and assessment of its shape.
Marjolein Bij de Vaate AJ; Linskens IH; van der Voet LF; Twisk JW; Brölmann HA; Huirne JA
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2015 May; 188():39-44. PubMed ID: 25770846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. First and Third Trimester Uterine Scar Thickness in Women With Previous Caesarean: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Paquette K; Markey S; Roberge S; Girard M; Bujold E; Demers S
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2019 Jan; 41(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 30316720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cesarean section scar measurements in non-pregnant women using three-dimensional ultrasound: a repeatability study.
Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Jun; 201():65-9. PubMed ID: 27064944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination.
Osser OV; Jokubkiene L; Valentin L
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Jul; 34(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 19499514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pilot study of MRI/ultrasound fusion imaging in postpartum assessment of Cesarean section scar.
Bolten K; Fischer T; Bender YY; Diederichs G; Thomas A
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Oct; 50(4):520-526. PubMed ID: 27804175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study.
Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Aug; 42(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 23288683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Standardized ultrasonographic approach for the assessment of risk factors of incomplete healing of the cesarean section scar in the uterus.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Oct; 205():141-5. PubMed ID: 27591715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Agreement between transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect.
Rasheedy R; Sammour H; Elkholy A; Fadel E
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2019 Dec; 48(10):827-831. PubMed ID: 31077871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of scar thickness measurements using trans-vaginal sonography and MRI in cases of pregnancy with previous caesarean section. Do they correlate with actual scar thickness?
Singh N; Tripathi R; Mala YM; Dixit R; Tyagi S; Batra A
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2013 Nov; 33(8):810-3. PubMed ID: 24219719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Natural history of early first-trimester pregnancies implanted in Cesarean scars.
Zosmer N; Fuller J; Shaikh H; Johns J; Ross JA
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Sep; 46(3):367-75. PubMed ID: 25586877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment of Cesarean hysterotomy scar before pregnancy and at 11-14 weeks of gestation: a prospective cohort study.
Baranov A; Salvesen KÅ; Vikhareva O
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jul; 50(1):105-109. PubMed ID: 27419374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Morphology of the cesarean section scar in the non-pregnant uterus after one elective cesarean section.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(4):174-179. PubMed ID: 28509317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors.
Ofili-Yebovi D; Ben-Nagi J; Sawyer E; Yazbek J; Lee C; Gonzalez J; Jurkovic D
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Jan; 31(1):72-7. PubMed ID: 18061960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
