478 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29032064)
1. 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]
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. The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative adverse events in women undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for the large uterus.
Bretschneider CE; Frazzini Padilla P; Das D; Jelovsek JE; Unger CA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):490.e1-490.e8. PubMed ID: 30222939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Cost comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Winter ML; Leu SY; Lagrew DC; Bustillo G
J Robot Surg; 2015 Dec; 9(4):269-75. PubMed ID: 26530837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Robotic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Adoption and Immediate Postoperative Outcomes in the United States.
Piedimonte S; Czuzoj-Shulman N; Gotlieb W; Abenhaim HA
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(3):551-557. PubMed ID: 30195078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of 30-day Complication Rates between Laparoscopic Myomectomy and Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Uterine Leiomyoma in Women Older Than Age 40.
Sheyn D; Bretschnieder CE; Mahajan ST; El-Nashar S; Billow M; Ninivaggio CS
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(6):1076-1082. PubMed ID: 30385429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Practice patterns and postoperative complications before and after US Food and Drug Administration safety communication on power morcellation.
Harris JA; Swenson CW; Uppal S; Kamdar N; Mahnert N; As-Sanie S; Morgan DM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Jan; 214(1):98.e1-98.e13. PubMed ID: 26314519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Value-based assessment of hysterectomy approaches.
Danilyants N; MacKoul P; Baxi R; van der Does LQ; Haworth LR
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2019 Feb; 45(2):389-398. PubMed ID: 30402927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Practice Patterns and Complications of Benign Hysterectomy Following the FDA Statement Warning Against the Use of Power Morcellation.
Multinu F; Casarin J; Hanson KT; Angioni S; Mariani A; Habermann EB; Laughlin-Tommaso SK
JAMA Surg; 2018 Jun; 153(6):e180141. PubMed ID: 29641835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Complication rate of uterine morcellation in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study.
Smits RM; De Kruif JH; Van Heteren CF
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Apr; 199():179-82. PubMed ID: 26943477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Patient, surgeon, and hospital disparities associated with benign hysterectomy approach and perioperative complications.
Mehta A; Xu T; Hutfless S; Makary MA; Sinno AK; Tanner EJ; Stone RL; Wang K; Fader AN
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 May; 216(5):497.e1-497.e10. PubMed ID: 28034651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy.
Lönnerfors C; Reynisson P; Persson J
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2015 Jan; 22(1):78-86. PubMed ID: 25045857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Discharge Readiness after Robotic and Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.
DeStephano CC; Gajarawala SP; Espinal M; Heckman MG; Vargas ER; Robertson MA
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(5):910-918. PubMed ID: 30240901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Updated hysterectomy surveillance and factors associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy.
Cohen SL; Vitonis AF; Einarsson JI
JSLS; 2014; 18(3):. PubMed ID: 25392662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Trends in Mode of Hysterectomy After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Power Morcellation Advisory.
Ottarsdottir H; Cohen SL; Cox M; Vitonis A; Einarsson JI
Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jun; 129(6):1014-1021. PubMed ID: 28486371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
