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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

305 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28925269)

  • 1. Laparoscopic and robotic sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up.
    Pilka R; Gágyor D; Študentová M; Neubert D; Dzvinčuk P
    Ceska Gynekol; 2017; 82(4):261-267. PubMed ID: 28925269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    De Gouveia De Sa M; Claydon LS; Whitlow B; Dolcet Artahona MA
    Int Urogynecol J; 2016 Mar; 27(3):355-66. PubMed ID: 26249235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.
    Lee RK; Mottrie A; Payne CK; Waltregny D
    Eur Urol; 2014 Jun; 65(6):1128-37. PubMed ID: 24433811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Mid-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy of combined transabdominal-transvaginal approach in the treatment of stage Ⅳ pelvic organ prolapse].
    Liang XZ; Xu LZ; Chen LQ; Wang S; Lin XT; Zhang XW
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2019 Mar; 54(3):160-165. PubMed ID: 30893716
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
    Sajadi KP; Goldman HB
    Nat Rev Urol; 2015 Apr; 12(4):216-24. PubMed ID: 25800401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. First report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy: Single site using the da Vinci Xi or Si system and single port using the da Vinci SP system.
    Lee SR; Roh AM; Jeong K; Kim SH; Chae HD; Moon HS
    Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Jan; 60(1):60-65. PubMed ID: 33495010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
    Chang CL; Chen CH; Chang SJ
    Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Feb; 33(2):297-308. PubMed ID: 33760992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study.
    Chill HH; Hadizadeh A; Paya-Ten C; Leffelman A; Chang C; Moss NP; Goldberg RP
    BMC Womens Health; 2024 Mar; 24(1):173. PubMed ID: 38481283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.
    Costantini E; Mearini L; Lazzeri M; Bini V; Nunzi E; di Biase M; Porena M
    J Urol; 2016 Jul; 196(1):159-65. PubMed ID: 26780167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
    Unger CA; Paraiso MF; Jelovsek JE; Barber MD; Ridgeway B
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Nov; 211(5):547.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25088866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy.
    Awad N; Mustafa S; Amit A; Deutsch M; Eldor-Itskovitz J; Lowenstein L
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2013 Jun; 287(6):1181-6. PubMed ID: 23274792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Implementation of a robotic surgical program in gynaecological oncology and comparison with prior laparoscopic series.
    Povolotskaya N; Woolas R; Brinkmann D
    Int J Surg Oncol; 2015; 2015():814315. PubMed ID: 25785195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of Different Laparoscopic Sacropexy Procedures for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis.
    Yan L; Lu S; Zhao C; Lei L; Liu L
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2023 Apr; 30(4):300-307. PubMed ID: 36563872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Single-port versus multi-port robotic sacrocervicopexy: Establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes.
    Lauterbach R; Mustafa-Mikhail S; Matanes E; Amit A; Wiener Z; Lowenstein L
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2019 Aug; 239():1-6. PubMed ID: 31154095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
    Oliver JL; Kim JH
    Curr Urol Rep; 2017 Sep; 18(9):66. PubMed ID: 28718162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
    Pan K; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Wang Y; Xu H
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Mar; 132(3):284-91. PubMed ID: 26797199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Surgical Outcomes of Paravaginal Repair After Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.
    Hoke TP; Goldstein H; Saks EK; Vakili B
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018; 25(5):892-895. PubMed ID: 29371174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.