286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22914470)
1. 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]
2. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Paraiso MF; Ridgeway B; Park AJ; Jelovsek JE; Barber MD; Falcone T; Einarsson JI
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 May; 208(5):368.e1-7. PubMed ID: 23395927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
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. Quality of life and surgical outcome after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: a randomized, controlled trial.
Kluivers KB; Hendriks JC; Mol BW; Bongers MY; Bremer GL; de Vet HC; Vierhout ME; Brolmann HA
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(2):145-52. PubMed ID: 17368247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Kongwattanakul K; Khampitak K
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2012; 19(1):89-94. PubMed ID: 22133703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies.
Sarlos D; Kots LA
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Aug; 23(4):283-8. PubMed ID: 21666467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Prospective evaluation of short-term impact and recovery of health related quality of life in men undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy.
Miller J; Smith A; Kouba E; Wallen E; Pruthi RS
J Urol; 2007 Sep; 178(3 Pt 1):854-8; discussion 859. PubMed ID: 17631338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Perioperative outcomes using LigaSure compared with conventional bipolar instruments in laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial.
Janssen PF; Brölmann HA; van Kesteren PJ; Bongers MY; Thurkow AL; Heymans MW; Huirne JA
BJOG; 2011 Dec; 118(13):1568-75. PubMed ID: 21895949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
Estape R; Lambrou N; Diaz R; Estape E; Dunkin N; Rivera A
Gynecol Oncol; 2009 Jun; 113(3):357-61. PubMed ID: 19345987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without robotic assistance: a prospective controlled study.
Martínez-Maestre MA; Gambadauro P; González-Cejudo C; Torrejón R
Surg Innov; 2014 Jun; 21(3):250-5. PubMed ID: 23833240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience.
Reynolds RK; Advincula AP
Am J Surg; 2006 Apr; 191(4):555-60. PubMed ID: 16531155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Robot-assisted laparoscopic presacral neurectomy: feasibility, techniques, and operative outcomes.
Nezhat C; Morozov V
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(4):508-12. PubMed ID: 20621011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using pulsed bipolar system: comparison with conventional bipolar electrosurgery.
Lee CL; Huang KG; Wang CJ; Lee PS; Hwang LL
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Jun; 105(3):620-4. PubMed ID: 17303226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
