224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28263199)
21. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse?
Maher CF; Cary MP; Slack MC; Murray CJ; Milligan M; Schluter P
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 2001; 12(6):381-4; discussion 384-5. PubMed ID: 11795641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.
Husby KR; Lose G; Klarskov N
Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Feb; 31(2):321-327. PubMed ID: 30610266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Enklaar RA; Schulten SFM; van Eijndhoven HWF; Weemhoff M; van Leijsen SAL; van der Weide MC; van Bavel J; Verkleij-Hagoort AC; Adang EMM; Kluivers KB;
JAMA; 2023 Aug; 330(7):626-635. PubMed ID: 37581670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Combined sacrospinous hysteropexy and cystopexy using a single anterior incision.
Petruzzelli P; Chiadò Fiorio Tin M; Cosma S; Parisi S; Garofalo A; Todros T
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Oct; 135(1):101-6. PubMed ID: 27352736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Success rates and outcomes of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy.
Daniels S; Robson D; Palacz M; Howell S; Nguyen T; Behnia-Willison F
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Apr; 60(2):244-249. PubMed ID: 31840811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.
Meriwether KV; Balk EM; Antosh DD; Olivera CK; Kim-Fine S; Murphy M; Grimes CL; Sleemi A; Singh R; Dieter AA; Crisp CC; Rahn DD
Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Apr; 30(4):505-522. PubMed ID: 30741318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Does hysterectomy modifies the anatomical and functional outcomes of prolapse surgery?: Clinical Practice Guidelines].
Cayrac M; Warembourg S; Le Normand L; Fatton B
Prog Urol; 2016 Jul; 26 Suppl 1():S73-88. PubMed ID: 27595628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy-a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial).
van IJsselmuiden MN; van Oudheusden A; Veen J; van de Pol G; Vollebregt A; Radder CM; Housmans S; van Kuijk S; Deprest J; Bongers MY; van Eijndhoven H
BJOG; 2020 Sep; 127(10):1284-1293. PubMed ID: 32267624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Vaginal morphology and position associated with prolapse recurrence after vaginal surgery: A secondary analysis of the DEMAND study.
Bowen ST; Moalli PA; Abramowitch SD; Luchristt DH; Meyer I; Rardin CR; Harvie HS; Hahn ME; Mazloomdoost D; Iyer P; Carper B; Gantz MG;
BJOG; 2024 Feb; 131(3):267-277. PubMed ID: 37522240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Uterine prolapse in young women.
Hefni M; El-Toucky T
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol; 2011 Apr; 25(2):157-65. PubMed ID: 21163709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Sacrospinous Fixation and Vaginal Uterosacral Suspension-Evaluation in Uterine Preservation Surgery.
Woodburn KL; Yuan AS; Torosis M; Roberts K; Ferrando CA; Gutman RE
Urogynecology (Phila); 2023 May; 29(5):469-478. PubMed ID: 36516026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The Design of a Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension Versus Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension (The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial).
Nager CW; Zyczynski H; Rogers RG; Barber MD; Richter HE; Visco AG; Rardin CR; Harvie H; Wallace D; Meikle SF;
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2016; 22(4):182-9. PubMed ID: 27054798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review.
Azadi A; Marchand G; Masoud AT; Sainz K; Govindan M; Ware K; King A; Ruther S; Brazil G; Calteux N; Ulibarri H; Parise J; Arroyo A; Coriell C; Goetz S; Ostergard DR
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2021 Dec; 267():90-98. PubMed ID: 34736035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Development and validation of the Value of Uterus instrument and visual analog scale to measure patients' valuation of their uterus.
Chang OH; Walters MD; Yao M; Lapin B
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Nov; 227(5):746.e1-746.e9. PubMed ID: 35764134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse.
Jirschele K; Seitz M; Zhou Y; Rosenblatt P; Culligan P; Sand P
Int Urogynecol J; 2015 May; 26(5):743-8. PubMed ID: 25394892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Concomitant pericervical reconstruction with sacrospinous hysteropexy: Anatomical and functional results.
Ghanbari Z; Veisi F; Eftekhar T; Deldar M; Mostaan F; Adabi K
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Mar; 62(2):252-255. PubMed ID: 36965891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Surgical management of uterine prolapse.
Park AJ; Paraiso MF
Minerva Ginecol; 2008 Dec; 60(6):493-507. PubMed ID: 18981977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Bladder function after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal wall repair in women with uterovaginal prolapse.
Sayed Ahmed WA; Taha OT; Hamdy MA; Ibrahim ZM; Elshahat AM
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2018 May; 224():170-174. PubMed ID: 29609185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review.
Diwan A; Rardin CR; Kohli N
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 2004; 15(4):286-92. PubMed ID: 15517676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Sacrospinous hysteropexy - an alternative in primary surgical treatment of apical compartment prolapse.
Homola Prokop; Hensel Germund; Košťál Milan
Ceska Gynekol; 2021; 86(3):200-204. PubMed ID: 34167313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
