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.
3. The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative adverse events in women undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for the large uterus. Bretschneider CE; Frazzini Padilla P; Das D; Jelovsek JE; Unger CA Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):490.e1-490.e8. PubMed ID: 30222939 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Operative Time for Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: Comparison of Conventional Laparoscopy versus Robotic Platform. Glass Clark S; Melnyk AI; Bonidie M; Giugale L; Bradley MS J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):1063-1067. PubMed ID: 35605827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Dubinskaya A; Hernandez-Aranda D; Wakefield DB; Shepherd JP Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Feb; 31(2):401-407. PubMed ID: 31256223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy Based on Route of Concurrent Hysterectomy: A Secondary Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Cardenas-Trowers O; Stewart JR; Meriwether KV; Francis SL; Gupta A J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020; 27(4):953-958. PubMed ID: 31404710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Perioperative complications and short-term outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and laparoscopic pectopexy for apical prolapse. Biler A; Ertas IE; Tosun G; Hortu I; Turkay U; Gultekin OE; Igci G Int Braz J Urol; 2018; 44(5):996-1004. PubMed ID: 30044591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The Impact of Obesity on Intraoperative Complications and Prolapse Recurrence After Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy. Turner L; Lavelle E; Lowder JL; Shepherd JP Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2016; 22(5):317-23. PubMed ID: 27054791 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: operative times and efficiency in a high-volume female pelvic medicine and laparoscopic surgery practice. Moore R; Moriarty C; Chinthakanan O; Miklos J Int Urogynecol J; 2017 Jun; 28(6):887-892. PubMed ID: 27766346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impact of Case Order on Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Do Surgeons Need a Warm-Up? Lavelle ES; Turner LC; Shepherd JP Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(4):272-275. PubMed ID: 28106657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Perioperative, postoperative and anatomical outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Kilic GS; Lee T; Lewis K; Demirkiran C; Dursun F; Unlu BS J Obstet Gynaecol; 2021 May; 41(4):651-654. PubMed ID: 33045854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Impact of a Dedicated Robotic Team on Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy Outcomes. Carter-Brooks CM; Du AL; Bonidie MJ; Shepherd JP Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(1):13-16. PubMed ID: 28430728 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A National Contemporary Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Open versus Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy. Linder BJ; Occhino JA; Habermann EB; Glasgow AE; Bews KA; Gershman B J Urol; 2018 Oct; 200(4):862-867. PubMed ID: 29630983 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Single Port Robotic Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: Our Experience With the First 25 Cases. Matanes E; Lauterbach R; Mustafa-Mikhail S; Amit A; Wiener Z; Lowenstein L Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(3):e14-e18. PubMed ID: 28134702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Financial analysis of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy. El Haraki AS; Shepherd JP; Parker-Autry C; Matthews CA Int Urogynecol J; 2023 May; 34(5):1121-1126. PubMed ID: 36729164 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Chan SS; Pang SM; Cheung TH; Cheung RY; Chung TK Hong Kong Med J; 2011 Feb; 17(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 21282827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room experiences. Pulliam SJ; Weinstein MM; Wakamatsu MM Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2012; 18(2):122-6. PubMed ID: 22453324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of midterm surgical and quality of life outcomes. Barboglio PG; Toler AJ; Triaca V Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2014; 20(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 24368487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]