160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29288346)
1. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study.
Tolstrup CK; Husby KR; Lose G; Kopp TI; Viborg PH; Kesmodel US; Klarskov N
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Mar; 29(3):431-440. PubMed ID: 29288346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis.
Husby KR; Tolstrup CK; Lose G; Klarskov N
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Aug; 29(8):1161-1171. PubMed ID: 29480429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.
Tolstrup CK; Lose G; Klarskov N
Int Urogynecol J; 2017 Jan; 28(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 27485234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques.
Husby KR; Larsen MD; Lose G; Klarskov N
Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Nov; 30(11):1887-1893. PubMed ID: 31053904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The modified Manchester Fothergill procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: long-term outcome.
Enklaar RA; Knapen FMFM; Schulten SFM; van Osch LADM; van Leijsen SAL; Gondrie ETCM; Weemhoff M
Int Urogynecol J; 2023 Jan; 34(1):155-164. PubMed ID: 35652948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
Detollenaere RJ; den Boon J; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Vierhout ME; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HW
BMJ; 2015 Jul; 351():h3717. PubMed ID: 26206451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recurrence of vaginal prolapse after total vaginal hysterectomy with concurrent vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: comparison between normal-weight and overweight women.
Rappa C; Saccone G
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Nov; 215(5):601.e1-601.e4. PubMed ID: 27342042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent.
Thys SD; Coolen A; Martens IR; Oosterbaan HP; Roovers J; Mol B; Bongers MY
Int Urogynecol J; 2011 Sep; 22(9):1171-8. PubMed ID: 21484366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension.
Bedford ND; Seman EI; O'Shea RT; Keirse MJ
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2013; 20(2):172-7. PubMed ID: 23321154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Outcomes of Manchester procedure combined with high uterosacral ligament suspension for uterine prolapse.
Wang Q; Wu N; Li Y; Lin C; Xu Y; Chen X
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2023 Apr; 49(4):1273-1282. PubMed ID: 36734101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.
Topdagi Yilmaz EP; Yapca OE; Topdagi YE; Atakan Al R; Kumtepe Y
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2021 Apr; 50(4):101905. PubMed ID: 32916370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Commentary on: The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study.
Grisales T
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Mar; 29(3):455-456. PubMed ID: 29288347
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Manchester Operation: An Effective Treatment for Uterine Prolapse Caused by True Cervical Elongation.
Park YJ; Kong MK; Lee J; Kim EH; Bai SW
Yonsei Med J; 2019 Nov; 60(11):1074-1080. PubMed ID: 31637890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Role of concurrent vaginal hysterectomy in the outcomes of mesh-based vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Forde JC; Chughtai B; Anger JT; Mao J; Sedrakyan A
Int Urogynecol J; 2017 Aug; 28(8):1183-1195. PubMed ID: 28091710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.
de Boer TA; Milani AL; Kluivers KB; Withagen MI; Vierhout ME
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 2009 Nov; 20(11):1313-9. PubMed ID: 19669686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Advanced uterovaginal prolapse: is vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty as effective as in lesser degrees of prolapse?
Alas A; Chandrasekaran N; Devakumar H; Martin L; Hurtado E; Davila GW
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Jan; 29(1):139-144. PubMed ID: 28779416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Rates of colpopexy and colporrhaphy at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse.
Fairchild PS; Kamdar NS; Berger MB; Morgan DM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Feb; 214(2):262.e1-262.e7. PubMed ID: 26366666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy with benign indication: a national cohort study in Taiwan.
Huang HK; Ding DC
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Nov; 29(11):1669-1674. PubMed ID: 29923012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Anatomic outcomes after pelvic-organ-prolapse surgery: comparing uterine preservation with hysterectomy.
Marschalek J; Trofaier ML; Yerlikaya G; Hanzal E; Koelbl H; Ott J; Umek W
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2014 Dec; 183():33-6. PubMed ID: 25461349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
