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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22453672)

  • 1. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.
    Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA; Luber KM; Nager CW; Lukacz ES
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2011 Jan; 17(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 22453672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
    Pan K; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Wang Y; Xu H
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Mar; 132(3):284-91. PubMed ID: 26797199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.
    Nosti PA; Umoh Andy U; Kane S; White DE; Harvie HS; Lowenstein L; Gutman RE
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2014; 20(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 24368486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cost analysis of open versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.
    Hoyte L; Rabbanifard R; Mezzich J; Bassaly R; Downes K
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2012; 18(6):335-9. PubMed ID: 23143426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Detailed Cost Analysis of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared to Transvaginal Mesh Repair.
    Ehlert MJ; Gupta P; Park J; Sirls LT
    Urology; 2016 Nov; 97():86-91. PubMed ID: 27496298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A pilot study on vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for patients with uterovaginal prolapse.
    von Pechmann WS; Aungst MJ; Gruber DD; Ghodsi PM; Cruess DF; Griffis KR
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2011 May; 17(3):115-9. PubMed ID: 22453781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review.
    Ganatra AM; Rozet F; Sanchez-Salas R; Barret E; Galiano M; Cathelineau X; Vallancien G
    Eur Urol; 2009 May; 55(5):1089-103. PubMed ID: 19201521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse.
    Elliott DS; Krambeck AE; Chow GK
    J Urol; 2006 Aug; 176(2):655-9. PubMed ID: 16813916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Yang J; He Y; Zhang X; Wang Z; Zuo X; Gao L; Hong L
    Ann Transl Med; 2021 Mar; 9(6):449. PubMed ID: 33850846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study.
    Breitenstein S; Nocito A; Puhan M; Held U; Weber M; Clavien PA
    Ann Surg; 2008 Jun; 247(6):987-93. PubMed ID: 18520226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era.
    Tyler JA; Fox JP; Desai MM; Perry WB; Glasgow SC
    Dis Colon Rectum; 2013 Apr; 56(4):458-66. PubMed ID: 23478613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs.
    Advincula AP; Xu X; Goudeau S; Ransom SB
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(6):698-705. PubMed ID: 17980329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pelvic floor function before and after robotic sacrocolpopexy: one-year outcomes.
    Geller EJ; Parnell BA; Dunivan GC
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2011; 18(3):322-7. PubMed ID: 21458389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review.
    Callewaert G; Bosteels J; Housmans S; Verguts J; Van Cleynenbreugel B; Van der Aa F; De Ridder D; Vergote I; Deprest J
    Gynecol Surg; 2016; 13():115-123. PubMed ID: 27226787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.