541 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22914467)
1. Risk factors for postoperative urinary retention after laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy for benign indications.
Smorgick N; DeLancey J; Patzkowsky K; Advincula A; Song A; As-Sanie S
Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Sep; 120(3):581-6. PubMed ID: 22914467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Nawfal AK; Orady M; Eisenstein D; Wegienka G
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2011; 18(3):328-32. PubMed ID: 21411379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Immediate Foley removal after laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: determinants of postoperative urinary retention.
Ghezzi F; Cromi A; Uccella S; Colombo G; Salvatore S; Tomera S; Bolis P
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(6):706-11. PubMed ID: 17980330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Robotic surgery in complicated gynecologic diseases: experience of Tri-Service General Hospital in Taiwan.
Tan SJ; Lin CK; Fu PT; Liu YL; Sun CC; Chang CC; Yu MH; Lai HC
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Mar; 51(1):18-25. PubMed ID: 22482963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Gynecologic robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: prospective analysis of feasibility, safety, and technique.
Scheib SA; Fader AN
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 212(2):179.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25088863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Perioperative complication rate in 1706 patients after a standardized laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy technique.
Bojahr B; Raatz D; Schonleber G; Abri C; Ohlinger R
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2006; 13(3):183-9. PubMed ID: 16698522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
Wright JD; Herzog TJ; Neugut AI; Burke WM; Lu YS; Lewin SN; Hershman DL
Gynecol Oncol; 2012 Oct; 127(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 22735788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. A comparison of urinary complications following total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy to open abdominal surgery.
Uccella S; Laterza R; Ciravolo G; Volpi E; Franchi M; Zefiro F; Donadello N; Ghezzi F
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Oct; 107(1 Suppl 1):S147-9. PubMed ID: 17720232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Predicting short-term urinary retention after vaginal prolapse surgery.
Hakvoort RA; Dijkgraaf MG; Burger MP; Emanuel MH; Roovers JP
Neurourol Urodyn; 2009; 28(3):225-8. PubMed ID: 19130599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Sarlos D; Kots L; Stevanovic N; von Felten S; Schär G
Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Sep; 120(3):604-11. PubMed ID: 22914470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative adverse events in women undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for the large uterus.
Bretschneider CE; Frazzini Padilla P; Das D; Jelovsek JE; Unger CA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):490.e1-490.e8. PubMed ID: 30222939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic hysterectomy with conventional laparoscopic instruments in patients with symptomatic leiomyoma and/or adenomyosis.
Phongnarisorn C; Chinthakanan O
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2011 Oct; 284(4):893-900. PubMed ID: 21116641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Audit of morbidity and mortality rates of 1792 hysterectomies.
Kafy S; Huang JY; Al-Sunaidi M; Wiener D; Tulandi T
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2006; 13(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 16431324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Influence of urodynamic factors on urinary retention in patients with cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy].
Chen XJ; Song YY; Cai LZ; Du KH; Lin CQ; Su YZ; Yu J
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2010 Sep; 45(9):677-81. PubMed ID: 21092548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of remote cesarean delivery on complications during hysterectomy: a cohort study.
Hesselman S; Högberg U; Jonsson M
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Nov; 217(5):564.e1-564.e8. PubMed ID: 28735704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Laparoscopic hysterectomy].
Copăescu C; Munteanu R; Iosifescu R; Ginghină O; Dragomirescu C
Chirurgia (Bucur); 2007; 102(2):161-7. PubMed ID: 17615917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.
Bell MC; Torgerson J; Seshadri-Kreaden U; Suttle AW; Hunt S
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Dec; 111(3):407-11. PubMed ID: 18829091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
