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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26411215)

  • 1. Chinese IUD removal techniques in a Chinese population in central Italy.
    Patacchiola F; Altobelli E; Di Febbo G; Benucci F; Palermo P; Carta G
    Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol; 2015; 42(4):480-4. PubMed ID: 26411215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A 10-year experience in removing Chinese intrauterine devices.
    Cheung VY
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2010 Jun; 109(3):219-22. PubMed ID: 20219193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Safe and cost-effective ultrasound guided removal of retained intrauterine device: our experience.
    Verma U; Astudillo-Dávalos FE; Gerkowicz SA
    Contraception; 2015 Jul; 92(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 25708503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Twelve-year experience of office-setting removal of lost intrauterine devices in place for more than 10 years.
    Kasuga Y; Lin BL; Maki J; Wang H; Yoshimura T; Nagai Y; Nakada S
    Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2019 Jun; 24(3):206-208. PubMed ID: 30983424
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Medical methods for cervical ripening before the removal of intrauterine devices in postmenopausal women: a systematic review.
    Hou SP; Chen OJ; Huang LH; Cheng LN; Teng YC
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2013 Jul; 169(2):130-42. PubMed ID: 23497958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. In-office hysteroscopic removal of retained or fragmented intrauterine device without anesthesia: a cross-sectional analysis of an international survey.
    Vitale SG; Di Spiezio Sardo A; Riemma G; De Franciscis P; Alonso Pacheco L; Carugno J
    Updates Surg; 2022 Jun; 74(3):1079-1085. PubMed ID: 35122582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In-office Hysteroscopic Extraction of Intrauterine Devices in Pregnant Patients Who Underwent Prior Ultrasound-guided Extraction Failure.
    Cohen SB; Bouaziz J; Bar-On A; Schiff E; Goldenberg M; Mashiach R
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017; 24(5):833-836. PubMed ID: 28461175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment.
    Kaislasuo J; Suhonen S; Gissler M; Lähteenmäki P; Heikinheimo O
    Hum Reprod; 2013 Jun; 28(6):1546-51. PubMed ID: 23526304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A novel hysteroscopic hook for extracting retained contraceptive intrauterine devices under direct vision.
    Liu L; Chi Y; Wang Y; Zhang G; Yang M; Ge L
    Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2015 Apr; 20(2):136-40. PubMed ID: 25666811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine devices in pregnancy.
    Sanders AP; Sanders B
    Fertil Steril; 2018 Dec; 110(7):1408-1409. PubMed ID: 30503139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Intra uterine devices removal during office hysteroscopy: About 36 cases].
    Carin AJ; Garbin O
    J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 2015 Sep; 44(7):653-7. PubMed ID: 25304096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Challenging Intrauterine Contraceptive: In-office Hysteroscopic Approach.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A; da Cunha Vieira M; Scognamiglio M; Zizolfi B; Nappi C; de Angelis C
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(4):469. PubMed ID: 26718264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Retention of intrauterine devices in women who acquire pelvic inflammatory disease: a systematic review.
    Tepper NK; Steenland MW; Gaffield ME; Marchbanks PA; Curtis KM
    Contraception; 2013 May; 87(5):655-60. PubMed ID: 23040135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Menstrual characteristics and ultrasonographic uterine cavity measurements predict bleeding and pain in nulligravid women using intrauterine contraception.
    Kaislasuo J; Heikinheimo O; Lähteenmäki P; Suhonen S
    Hum Reprod; 2015 Jul; 30(7):1580-8. PubMed ID: 25990577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Indications for removal of intrauterine contraceptive devices in Jos, north-central Nigeria.
    Mutihir JT; Ujah IA; Uduagbamen PF; Iranloye T
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2006 Dec; 9(2):105-8. PubMed ID: 17319339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Intrauterine devices: an effective alternative to oral hormonal contraception.
    Prescrire Int; 2009 Jun; 18(101):125-30. PubMed ID: 19637436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Emergent Laparoscopic Removal of a Perforating Intrauterine Device During Pregnancy Under Regional Anesthesia.
    Giampaolino P; Della Corte L; Di Spiezio Sardo A; Zizolfi B; Manzi A; De Angelis C; Bifulco G; Carugno J
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(6):1013-1014. PubMed ID: 30914327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Observations on the duration of continual intrauterine insertion of stainless steel ring (author's transl)].
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 1979 Apr; 14(2):103-5. PubMed ID: 263026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Removal of the LNG IUD when strings are not visible: a case series.
    Swenson C; Royer PA; Turok DK; Jacobson JC; Amaral G; Sanders JN
    Contraception; 2014 Sep; 90(3):288-90. PubMed ID: 24835830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effectiveness of ultrasound-guided removal of intrauterine devices.
    Townsend L; Luxford E; Mizia K
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2022 Oct; 62(5):800-802. PubMed ID: 35815357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.