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.
455 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27287246)
41. 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]
43. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? Lenihan JP; Kovanda C; Seshadri-Kreaden U J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2008; 15(5):589-94. PubMed ID: 18722971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison. Desai MM; de Castro Abreu AL; Leslie S; Cai J; Huang EY; Lewandowski PM; Lee D; Dharmaraja A; Berger AK; Goh A; Ukimura O; Aron M; Gill IS Eur Urol; 2014 Oct; 66(4):713-9. PubMed ID: 24486306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. Advincula AP; Xu X; Goudeau S; Ransom SB J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(6):698-705. PubMed ID: 17980329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. A prospective comparison of postoperative pain and quality of life in robotic assisted vs conventional laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Zechmeister JR; Pua TL; Boyd LR; Blank SV; Curtin JP; Pothuri B Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 212(2):194.e1-7. PubMed ID: 25108142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Single-site Versus Multiport Robotic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Diseases: A Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes and Cost Analysis. Bogliolo S; Ferrero S; Cassani C; Musacchi V; Zanellini F; Dominoni M; Spinillo A; Gardella B J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(4):603-9. PubMed ID: 26898895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Gynecologic robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: prospective analysis of feasibility, safety, and technique. Scheib SA; Fader AN Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 212(2):179.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25088863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. [Analysis of perioperative complications and influencing factors of complications in 1 000 cases of robotic gynecological surgery]. Huang XT; Ji M; Zhao Z; He NN; Li Y; Xu PL; Zhang JF Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2021 May; 56(5):341-348. PubMed ID: 34034421 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study. Corrado G; Fanfani F; Ghezzi F; Fagotti A; Uccella S; Mancini E; Sperduti I; Stevenazzi G; Scambia G; Vizza E Eur J Surg Oncol; 2015 Jan; 41(1):136-41. PubMed ID: 25468748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Comparative outcomes in older and younger women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Guy MS; Sheeder J; Behbakht K; Wright JD; Guntupalli SR Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Mar; 214(3):350.e1-350.e10. PubMed ID: 26433173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Reoperation After Robotic and Vaginal Mesh Reconstructive Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Martin LA; Calixte R; Finamore PS Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2015; 21(6):315-8. PubMed ID: 26506158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Short- and long-term morbidity and outcomes after robotic surgery for comprehensive endometrial cancer staging. Backes FJ; Brudie LA; Farrell MR; Ahmad S; Finkler NJ; Bigsby GE; O'Malley D; Cohn DE; Holloway RW; Fowler JM Gynecol Oncol; 2012 Jun; 125(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 22387522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Well-differentiated thyroid cancer and robotic transaxillary surgery at a North American institution. Garstka M; Mohsin K; Ali DB; Shalaby H; Ibraheem K; Farag M; Kang SW; Kandil E J Surg Res; 2018 Aug; 228():170-178. PubMed ID: 29907208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Learning Needs of Women Who Undergo Robotic Versus Open Gynecologic Surgery. Kurt G; Loerzel VW; Hines RB; Tavasci K; Galura S; Ahmad S; Holloway RW J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 2018 Jul; 47(4):490-497. PubMed ID: 29750905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. A prospective, comparative study on robotic versus open-surgery hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma. Eklind S; Lindfors A; Sjöli P; Dahm-Kähler P Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2015 Feb; 25(2):250-6. PubMed ID: 25611898 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Lowe MP; Chamberlain DH; Kamelle SA; Johnson PR; Tillmanns TD Gynecol Oncol; 2009 May; 113(2):191-4. PubMed ID: 19249082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery in an older population: A comparison study. Moore MS; Vo EH; Bhattarai B; Farley JH; Monk BJ; Willmott LJ; Chase DM J Geriatr Oncol; 2023 Jul; 14(6):101533. PubMed ID: 37295288 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]