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 *

321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26658893)

  • 1. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.
    Turner LC; Lavelle ES; Shepherd JP
    Int Urogynecol J; 2016 May; 27(5):797-803. PubMed ID: 26658893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.
    Houlihan S; Kim-Fine S; Birch C; Tang S; Brennand EA
    Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Apr; 30(4):611-621. PubMed ID: 30393822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional surgery for uterosacral ligament suspension in patients who had concomitant vaginal hysterectomy for subtotal uterine prolapse.
    Ekin M; Dura MC; Yildiz S; Gürsoy B; Yildiz YY; Dogan K; Kaya C
    Asian J Endosc Surg; 2024 Jul; 17(3):e13333. PubMed ID: 38839273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. National Analysis of Perioperative Morbidity of Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.
    Chapman GC; Slopnick EA; Roberts K; Sheyn D; Wherley S; Mahajan ST; Pollard RR
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Feb; 28(2):275-281. PubMed ID: 32450226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature.
    Douligeris A; Kathopoulis N; Zachariou E; Mortaki A; Zacharakis D; Kypriotis K; Chatzipapas I; Protopapas A
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 Jun; 31(6):477-487. PubMed ID: 38493827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Vaginal versus robotic hysterectomy and concomitant pelvic support surgery: a comparison of postoperative vaginal length and sexual function.
    De La Cruz JF; Myers EM; Geller EJ
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2014; 21(6):1010-4. PubMed ID: 24780383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy vs Total Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Anterior and Apical Prolapse: Surgical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction.
    Haj-Yahya R; Chill HH; Levin G; Reuveni-Salzman A; Shveiky D
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020 Jan; 27(1):88-93. PubMed ID: 30802607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative Perioperative Pain and Recovery in Women Undergoing Vaginal Reconstruction Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.
    Westermann LB; Crisp CC; Mazloomdoost D; Kleeman SD; Pauls RN
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(2):95-100. PubMed ID: 28067743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. High Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse Repair.
    Barba M; Cola A; Melocchi T; De Vicari D; Costa C; Volontè S; Sandullo L; Frigerio M
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2024 Feb; 60(2):. PubMed ID: 38399607
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. vNOTES versus Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Perioperative and Short-Term Outcomes.
    Morganstein T; Gangal M; Belzile E; Sohaei D; Bentaleb J; Reuveni-Salzman A; Merovitz L; Walter JE; Larouche M
    Int Urogynecol J; 2024 Sep; 35(9):1899-1908. PubMed ID: 39215808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.
    Topdagi Yilmaz EP; Yapca OE; Topdagi YE; Atakan Al R; Kumtepe Y
    J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2021 Apr; 50(4):101905. PubMed ID: 32916370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Long-Term Costs of Minimally Invasive Sacral Colpopexy Compared to Native Tissue Vaginal Repair With Concomitant Hysterectomy.
    El Haraki AS; Shepherd JP; Matthews CA; Cadish LA
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 Aug; 31(8):674-679. PubMed ID: 38705377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Minimally Invasive Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.
    Hwang WY; Jeon MJ; Suh DH
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 May; 31(5):406-413. PubMed ID: 38336010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Functional and anatomic comparison of 2 versus 3 suture placement for uterosacral ligament suspension: a cadaver study.
    Montoya TI; Dillon SJ; Balgobin S; Wai CY
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Nov; 209(5):486.e1-5. PubMed ID: 23770468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Nager CW; Visco AG; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Rogers RG; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Paraiso MFR; Mazloomdoost D; Grey S; Sridhar A; Wallace D;
    JAMA; 2019 Sep; 322(11):1054-1065. PubMed ID: 31529008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches.
    Rardin CR; Erekson EA; Sung VW; Ward RM; Myers DL
    J Reprod Med; 2009 May; 54(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 19517690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of Time of Year on Surgical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Sacral Colpopexy or Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.
    Renkosiak K; Bradley M; Dubinskaya A; Shepherd JP
    Urogynecology (Phila); 2022 Sep; 28(9):561-566. PubMed ID: 35649240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort of Absorbable and Permanent Suture Groups.
    Bradley MS; Bickhaus JA; Amundsen CL; Newcomb LK; Truong T; Weidner AC; Siddiqui NY
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(3):207-212. PubMed ID: 28657988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Long-term outcomes and predictors of failure after surgery for stage IV apical pelvic organ prolapse.
    Linder BJ; El-Nashar SA; Mukwege AA; Weaver AL; McGree ME; Rhodes DJ; Gebhart JB; Klingele CJ; Occhino JA; Trabuco EC
    Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Jun; 29(6):803-810. PubMed ID: 28921036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Abdominal and vaginal pelvic support with concomitant hysterectomy for uterovaginal pelvic prolapse: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Alfahmy A; Mahran A; Conroy B; Brewka RR; Ibrahim M; Sheyn D; El-Nashar SA; Hijaz A
    Int Urogynecol J; 2021 Aug; 32(8):2021-2031. PubMed ID: 34050771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.