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.
109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24286549)
41. Mid term outcome of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Belsante M; Murray S; Dillon B; Zimmern P Can J Urol; 2013 Feb; 20(1):6656-61. PubMed ID: 23433141 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [Feasibility and short-term morbidity of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with previous genital prolapse surgery]. Menard JP; Perez T; Agostini A J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 2010 May; 39(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 20363568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. The use of a xenogenic barrier to prevent mesh erosion with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Ross JW J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(4):470-4. PubMed ID: 17630165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. [Robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: Feasibility in obese patients]. Planque H; Martin-Françoise S; Lequesne J; Le Brun JF Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol; 2018 Sep; 46(9):625-631. PubMed ID: 30115552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. 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]
49. The anatomical outcome of robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of obese and non-obese patients. Azadi A; Francis SL; Taylor KC; Diaz SI; Pasic R; Yeganeh T; Ostergard DR Surg Technol Int; 2014 Mar; 24():249-52. PubMed ID: 24700227 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. [Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence]. Hu CD; Chen YS; Yi XF; Ding JX; Feng WW; Yao LQ; Huang J; Zhang Y; Hu WG; Zhu ZL; Hua KQ Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2011 Feb; 46(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 21426765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic aortofemoral bypass grafting for aortoiliac occlusive disease. Novotný T; Dvorák M; Staffa R J Vasc Surg; 2011 Feb; 53(2):414-20. PubMed ID: 21093201 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. [Use of glue in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. A comparative study about 32 cases]. Willecocq C; Pizzoferrato AC; Fauconnier A; Bader G Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2014 Dec; 42(12):822-6. PubMed ID: 25456490 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Laparoscopic management of benign adnexal mass in obese women. Thomas D; Ikeda M; Deepika K; Medina C; Takacs P J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2006; 13(4):311-4. PubMed ID: 16825072 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]