135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28121585)
1. Open vs. Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Commercially Insured Costs and Readmissions.
Fitch K; Huh W; Bochner A
Manag Care; 2016 Aug; 25(8):40-47. PubMed ID: 28121585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cost Differences Between Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery.
Fitch K; Engel T; Bochner A
Manag Care; 2015 Sep; 24(9):40-8. PubMed ID: 26521339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Open abdominal versus laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy: analysis of a large United States payer measuring quality and cost of care.
Warren L; Ladapo JA; Borah BJ; Gunnarsson CL
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2009; 16(5):581-8. PubMed ID: 19835801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Nationwide trends in the utilization of and payments for hysterectomy in the United States among commercially insured women.
Morgan DM; Kamdar NS; Swenson CW; Kobernik EK; Sammarco AG; Nallamothu B
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Apr; 218(4):425.e1-425.e18. PubMed ID: 29288067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Health resource utilization and costs during the first 90 days following robot-assisted hysterectomy.
Dandolu V; Pathak P
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Jun; 29(6):865-872. PubMed ID: 28785778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits.
Keller DS; Senagore AJ; Fitch K; Bochner A; Haas EM
Surg Endosc; 2017 Jul; 31(7):2846-2853. PubMed ID: 27815745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Trends in readmission rate by route of hysterectomy - a single-center experience.
Kreuninger JA; Cohen SL; Meurs EAIM; Cox M; Vitonis A; Jansen FW; Einarsson JI
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2018 Mar; 97(3):285-293. PubMed ID: 29192965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [A comparative analysis of hysterectomies].
Aniuliene R; Varzgaliene L; Varzgalis M
Medicina (Kaunas); 2007; 43(2):118-24. PubMed ID: 17329946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer.
Fitch K; Bochner A; Keller DS
Curr Med Res Opin; 2017 Jul; 33(7):1215-1221. PubMed ID: 28326894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Culture-Confirmed
Rashid N; Begier E; Lin KJ; Yu H
Surg Infect (Larchmt); 2020 Mar; 21(2):169-178. PubMed ID: 31580776
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Temporal trend and nationwide utility for hysterectomies in Taiwan, 1997-2010.
Huang WY; Huang KH; Chang WC; Wu SC
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Oct; 55(5):659-665. PubMed ID: 27751412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications.
Lim PC; Crane JT; English EJ; Farnam RW; Garza DM; Winter ML; Rozeboom JL
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Jun; 133(3):359-64. PubMed ID: 26952352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Vaginal and Laparoscopic hysterectomy as an outpatient procedure: A systematic review.
Dedden SJ; Geomini PMAJ; Huirne JAF; Bongers MY
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2017 Sep; 216():212-223. PubMed ID: 28810192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with traditional hysterectomy for cost-effectiveness to employers.
Lenihan JP; Kovanda C; Cammarano C
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jun; 190(6):1714-20; discussion 1720-2. PubMed ID: 15284779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The shift from inpatient to outpatient hysterectomy for endometrial cancer in the United States: trends, enabling factors, cost, and safety.
Cappuccio S; Li Y; Song C; Liu E; Glaser G; Casarin J; Grassi T; Butler K; Magtibay P; Magrina JF; Scambia G; Mariani A; Langstraat C
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2021 May; 31(5):686-693. PubMed ID: 33727220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy and Power Morcellation Trends in a West Coast Integrated Health System.
Zaritsky E; Tucker LY; Neugebauer R; Chou T; Flanagan T; Walter AJ; Raine-Bennett T
Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 129(6):996-1005. PubMed ID: 28486359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In-hospital complications of vaginal versus laparoscopic-assisted benign hysterectomy among older women: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Lai JC; Chen HH; Huang SM; Wang KL; Huang N; Hu HY; Chou YJ
Menopause; 2016 Nov; 23(11):1233-1238. PubMed ID: 27465711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risks and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy: a decision analysis.
Cadish LA; Shepherd JP; Barber EL; Ridgeway B
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Nov; 217(5):603.e1-603.e6. PubMed ID: 28619689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of power morcellator removal on hysterectomy practice patterns.
Wesol A; Woolley S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2017 Aug; 215():41-44. PubMed ID: 28599164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
