442 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26797199)
1. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
Pan K; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Wang Y; Xu H
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Mar; 132(3):284-91. PubMed ID: 26797199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. One-year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh.
Jambusaria LH; Murphy M; Lucente VR
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2015; 21(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 25185594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.
Lee RK; Mottrie A; Payne CK; Waltregny D
Eur Urol; 2014 Jun; 65(6):1128-37. PubMed ID: 24433811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse.
Matanes E; Boulus S; Lauterbach R; Amit A; Weiner Z; Lowenstein L
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Apr; 222(4):358.e1-358.e11. PubMed ID: 31589864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for High-stage Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-center Study.
Illiano E; Ditonno P; Giannitsas K; De Rienzo G; Bini V; Costantini E
Urology; 2019 Dec; 134():116-123. PubMed ID: 31563536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Abdominal Versus Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Campbell P; Cloney L; Jha S
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2016 Aug; 71(7):435-42. PubMed ID: 27436178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Chang CL; Chen CH; Chang SJ
Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Feb; 33(2):297-308. PubMed ID: 33760992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Tension-free vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: Analysis of perioperative outcomes using a Japanese national inpatient database.
Obinata D; Sugihara T; Yasunaga H; Mochida J; Yamaguchi K; Murata Y; Yoshizawa T; Matsui T; Matsui H; Sasabuchi Y; Fujimura T; Homma Y; Takahashi S
Int J Urol; 2018 Jul; 25(7):655-659. PubMed ID: 29729035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Serati M; Bogani G; Sorice P; Braga A; Torella M; Salvatore S; Uccella S; Cromi A; Ghezzi F
Eur Urol; 2014 Aug; 66(2):303-18. PubMed ID: 24631406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The 26-Minute Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy: Do We Really Need Robotic Technology?
Miklos JR; Moore RD
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2015; 22(5):712. PubMed ID: 25769671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Anchor vs suture for the attachment of vaginal mesh in a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial.
Berger AA; Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):258.e1-258.e8. PubMed ID: 32413431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse, a randomized controlled trial: SALTO-2 trial, study protocol.
Coolen AWM; van IJsselmuiden MN; van Oudheusden AMJ; Veen J; van Eijndhoven HWF; Mol BWJ; Roovers JP; Bongers MY
BMC Womens Health; 2017 Jul; 17(1):52. PubMed ID: 28747206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.
Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA; Luber KM; Nager CW; Lukacz ES
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2011 Jan; 17(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 22453672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
De Gouveia De Sa M; Claydon LS; Whitlow B; Dolcet Artahona MA
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 Mar; 27(3):355-66. PubMed ID: 26249235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Unger CA; Paraiso MF; Jelovsek JE; Barber MD; Ridgeway B
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Nov; 211(5):547.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25088866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.
Costantini E; Mearini L; Lazzeri M; Bini V; Nunzi E; di Biase M; Porena M
J Urol; 2016 Jul; 196(1):159-65. PubMed ID: 26780167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Judd JP; Siddiqui NY; Barnett JC; Visco AG; Havrilesky LJ; Wu JM
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(4):493-9. PubMed ID: 20621010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Wei D; Wang P; Niu X; Zhao X
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2019 Apr; 45(4):915-922. PubMed ID: 30652385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cosmetic Appearance of Port-site Scars 1 Year After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Supplementary Study of the ACCESS Clinical Trial.
Mueller ER; Kenton K; Anger JT; Bresee C; Tarnay C
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(6):917-21. PubMed ID: 27180224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.
Pan K; Cao L; Ryan NA; Wang Y; Xu H
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 Jan; 27(1):93-101. PubMed ID: 26179552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
