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.
108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27648646)
1. Hysterectomy for Uterine Cancer in the Elderly: A Comparison Between Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Techniques. Zakhari A; Czuzoj-Shulman N; Spence AR; Gotlieb WH; Abenhaim HA Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2016 Sep; 26(7):1222-7. PubMed ID: 27648646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomy for uterine cancer: a comparison of costs and complications. Zakhari A; Czuzoj-Shulman N; Spence AR; Gotlieb WH; Abenhaim HA Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Nov; 213(5):665.e1-7. PubMed ID: 26188114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy for Uterine Leiomyomas: A Comparison of Complications and Costs. Ngan TYT; Zakhari A; Czuzoj-Shulman N; Tulandi T; Abenhaim HA J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2018 Apr; 40(4):432-439. PubMed ID: 29032064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Social determinants of access to minimally invasive hysterectomy: reevaluating the relationship between race and route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Price JT; Zimmerman LD; Koelper NC; Sammel MD; Lee S; Butts SF Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Nov; 217(5):572.e1-572.e10. PubMed ID: 28784416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A population-based registry study evaluating surgery in newly diagnosed uterine cancer. Borgfeldt C; Kalapotharakos G; Asciutto KC; Löfgren M; Högberg T Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2016 Aug; 95(8):901-11. PubMed ID: 27124384 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Swenson CW; Kamdar NS; Harris JA; Uppal S; Campbell DA; Morgan DM Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Nov; 215(5):650.e1-650.e8. PubMed ID: 27343568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact of Robotic Platforms on Surgical Approach and Costs in the Management of Morbidly Obese Patients with Newly Diagnosed Uterine Cancer. Leitao MM; Narain WR; Boccamazzo D; Sioulas V; Cassella D; Ducie JA; Eriksson AG; Sonoda Y; Chi DS; Brown CL; Levine DA; Jewell EL; Zivanovic O; Barakat RR; Abu-Rustum NR; Gardner GJ Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Jul; 23(7):2192-8. PubMed ID: 26744108 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Same-day discharge is feasible and safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for gynecologic malignancies. Penner KR; Fleming ND; Barlavi L; Axtell AE; Lentz SE Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 212(2):186.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25132462 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Marra AR; Puig-Asensio M; Edmond MB; Schweizer ML; Bender D Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2019 Mar; 29(3):518-530. PubMed ID: 30833440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impact of age on surgical staging and approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotic surgery) in endometrial cancer management. Bourgin C; Lambaudie E; Houvenaeghel G; Foucher F; Levêque J; Lavoué V Eur J Surg Oncol; 2017 Apr; 43(4):703-709. PubMed ID: 27955835 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery in morbidly obese endometrial cancer patients - a comparative analysis of total charges and complication rates. Chan JK; Gardner AB; Taylor K; Thompson CA; Blansit K; Yu X; Kapp DS Gynecol Oncol; 2015 Nov; 139(2):300-5. PubMed ID: 26363212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. Wright JD; Ananth CV; Lewin SN; Burke WM; Lu YS; Neugut AI; Herzog TJ; Hershman DL JAMA; 2013 Feb; 309(7):689-98. PubMed ID: 23423414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Hand-Assisted Robotic Surgery for Staging of Ovarian Cancer and Uterine Cancers With High Risk of Peritoneal Spread: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Fornalik H; Brooks H; Moore ES; Flanders NL; Callahan MJ; Sutton GP Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2015 Oct; 25(8):1488-93. PubMed ID: 26270117 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Wright JD; Herzog TJ; Neugut AI; Burke WM; Lu YS; Lewin SN; Hershman DL Gynecol Oncol; 2012 Oct; 127(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 22735788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without robotic assistance: a prospective controlled study. Martínez-Maestre MA; Gambadauro P; González-Cejudo C; Torrejón R Surg Innov; 2014 Jun; 21(3):250-5. PubMed ID: 23833240 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Risk factors for postoperative urinary retention after laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy for benign indications. Smorgick N; DeLancey J; Patzkowsky K; Advincula A; Song A; As-Sanie S Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Sep; 120(3):581-6. PubMed ID: 22914467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Colectomies Using a Large National Database: Outcomes and Trends Related to Surgery Center Volume. Yeo HL; Isaacs AJ; Abelson JS; Milsom JW; Sedrakyan A Dis Colon Rectum; 2016 Jun; 59(6):535-42. PubMed ID: 27145311 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Mäenpää MM; Nieminen K; Tomás EI; Laurila M; Luukkaala TH; Mäenpää JU Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Nov; 215(5):588.e1-588.e7. PubMed ID: 27288987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]