308 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22453324)
1. Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room experiences.
Pulliam SJ; Weinstein MM; Wakamatsu MM
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2012; 18(2):122-6. PubMed ID: 22453324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
Antosh DD; Grotzke SA; McDonald MA; Shveiky D; Park AJ; Gutman RE; Sokol AI
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2012; 18(3):158-61. PubMed ID: 22543767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy.
Awad N; Mustafa S; Amit A; Deutsch M; Eldor-Itskovitz J; Lowenstein L
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2013 Jun; 287(6):1181-6. PubMed ID: 23274792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Robotic-assisted surgery in urogynecology--our experience with the first 100 cases: experience from a single institution].
Mustafa S; Mustafa M; Burke Y; Nibal AK; Deutsch M; Deutsch M; Lowenstein L
Harefuah; 2014 Aug; 153(8):448-52, 499. PubMed ID: 25286633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Laparoscopic and robotic sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up.
Pilka R; Gágyor D; Študentová M; Neubert D; Dzvinčuk P
Ceska Gynekol; 2017; 82(4):261-267. PubMed ID: 28925269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Trabulsi EJ; Zola JC; Colon-Herdman A; Heckman JE; Gomella LG; Lallas CD
Arch Esp Urol; 2011 Oct; 64(8):823-9. PubMed ID: 22052763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience.
Rozet F; Jaffe J; Braud G; Harmon J; Cathelineau X; Barret E; Vallancien G
J Urol; 2007 Aug; 178(2):478-82. PubMed ID: 17561160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
De Gouveia De Sa M; Claydon LS; Whitlow B; Dolcet Artahona MA
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 Mar; 27(3):355-66. PubMed ID: 26249235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy/sacrocervicopexy repair of pelvic organ prolapse: initial experience.
Göçmen A; Sanlıkan F; Uçar MG
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2012 Mar; 285(3):683-8. PubMed ID: 21818575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy?
Seamon LG; Cohn DE; Henretta MS; Kim KH; Carlson MJ; Phillips GS; Fowler JM
Gynecol Oncol; 2009 Apr; 113(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 19168206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 252 robotic partial nephrectomies: evolving renorrhaphy technique and surgical outcomes at a single institution.
Kaouk JH; Hillyer SP; Autorino R; Haber GP; Gao T; Altunrende F; Khanna R; Spana G; White MA; Laydner H; Isac W; Stein RJ
Urology; 2011 Dec; 78(6):1338-44. PubMed ID: 22001098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.
Lee RK; Mottrie A; Payne CK; Waltregny D
Eur Urol; 2014 Jun; 65(6):1128-37. PubMed ID: 24433811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Robotic vs laparoscopic posterior retroperitoneal adrenalectomy.
Agcaoglu O; Aliyev S; Karabulut K; Siperstein A; Berber E
Arch Surg; 2012 Mar; 147(3):272-5. PubMed ID: 22430911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integrating robotic partial nephrectomy to an existing robotic surgery program.
Yuh B; Muldrew S; Menchaca A; Yip W; Lau C; Wilson T; Josephson D
Can J Urol; 2012 Apr; 19(2):6193-200. PubMed ID: 22512965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Robotic Heller myotomy: a safe operation with higher postoperative quality-of-life indices.
Huffmanm LC; Pandalai PK; Boulton BJ; James L; Starnes SL; Reed MF; Howington JA; Nussbaum MS
Surgery; 2007 Oct; 142(4):613-8; discussion 618-20. PubMed ID: 17950356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of laparoscopic versus robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: one surgeon's initial experience.
DeLong JM; Shapiro O; Moinzadeh A
Can J Urol; 2010 Jun; 17(3):5207-12. PubMed ID: 20566016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Dual-console robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery with respect to surgical outcomes in a gynecologic oncology fellowship program.
Smith AL; Krivak TC; Scott EM; Rauh-Hain JA; Sukumvanich P; Olawaiye AB; Richard SD
Gynecol Oncol; 2012 Sep; 126(3):432-6. PubMed ID: 22613352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse using robot assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: quality of life and technique.
Mourik SL; Martens JE; Aktas M
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2012 Nov; 165(1):122-7. PubMed ID: 22897838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
