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.
305 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28925269)
41. Perioperative complications and short-term outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and laparoscopic pectopexy for apical prolapse. Biler A; Ertas IE; Tosun G; Hortu I; Turkay U; Gultekin OE; Igci G Int Braz J Urol; 2018; 44(5):996-1004. PubMed ID: 30044591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. The effectiveness of two different laparoscopic surgeries for apical support of pelvic organ prolapse. Li S; Ji M; Zhao Z Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2015 May; 188():74-8. PubMed ID: 25801721 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic vaginal stump–round (Kakinuma method) and stump–uterosacral (Shull method) ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective comparative study. Kakinuma T; Kakinuma K; Ueyama K; Shinohara T; Okamoto R; Imai K; Takeshima N; Yanagida K; Ohwada M BMC Surg; 2024 May; 24(1):137. PubMed ID: 38711094 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yang J; He Y; Zhang X; Wang Z; Zuo X; Gao L; Hong L Ann Transl Med; 2021 Mar; 9(6):449. PubMed ID: 33850846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Li C; Dai Z; Shu H Trials; 2018 Mar; 19(1):160. PubMed ID: 29506566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. Evangelopoulos N; Nessi A; Achtari C J Robot Surg; 2024 Feb; 18(1):72. PubMed ID: 38340232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse? Mach P; Kaufold C; Rusch P; Kimmig R; Buderath P Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Dec; 306(6):2009-2015. PubMed ID: 35974180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Comparison of laparoscopic techniques for apical organ prolapse repair - a systematic review of the literature. Szymczak P; Grzybowska ME; Wydra DG Neurourol Urodyn; 2019 Nov; 38(8):2031-2050. PubMed ID: 31452267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Surgical techniques for advanced stage pelvic organ prolapse. Brown DN; Strauchon C; Gonzalez H; Gruber D Minerva Ginecol; 2016 Feb; 68(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 26448444 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital. Mäenpää M; Nieminen K; Tomás E; Luukkaala T; Mäenpää JU Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2015 May; 94(5):482-8. PubMed ID: 25721212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Serati M; Bogani G; Sorice P; Braga A; Torella M; Salvatore S; Uccella S; Cromi A; Ghezzi F Eur Urol; 2014 Aug; 66(2):303-18. PubMed ID: 24631406 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Comparison of Trendelenburg Angles in Vaginal, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Uterovaginal Apical Prolapse Repairs. Jaresova A; Warda H; Macharia A; Hacker MR; Li J J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Nov; 28(11):1868-1875. PubMed ID: 33857670 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-control study. Cucinella G; Calagna G; Romano G; Di Buono G; Gugliotta G; Saitta S; Adile G; Manzone M; Accardi G; Perino A; Agrusa A G Chir; 2016; 37(3):113-117. PubMed ID: 27734794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study. Kalis V; Smazinka M; Rusavy Z; Blaganje M; Havir M; Havelkova L; Ismail K Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2020 Jan; 244():60-65. PubMed ID: 31747633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Outcomes in 450 Women After Minimally Invasive Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Mueller MG; Jacobs KM; Mueller ER; Abernethy MG; Kenton KS Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2016; 22(4):267-71. PubMed ID: 27054799 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Alas AN; Anger JT Curr Urol Rep; 2015 May; 16(5):33. PubMed ID: 25874589 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. [Robot assisted endometrial cancer staging - evaluation the first 100 operations and comparing the first andthe last 30 operations]. Marek R; Dzvinčuk P; Kudela M; Hambálek P; Maděrka M; Zapletalová J; Pilka R Ceska Gynekol; 2015 Oct; 80(5):324-32. PubMed ID: 26606116 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. [Robotic-assisted surgery in urogynecology--our experience with the first 100 cases: experience from a single institution]. Mustafa S; Mustafa M; Burke Y; Nibal AK; Deutsch M; Deutsch M; Lowenstein L Harefuah; 2014 Aug; 153(8):448-52, 499. PubMed ID: 25286633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]