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 *

307 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29530834)

  • 21. Minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer: A propensity score-matched cohort study.
    Dai D; Huang H; Feng Y; Wan T; Liu Z; Tong C; Liu J
    Cancer Med; 2020 Dec; 9(24):9236-9245. PubMed ID: 33236825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Trachelectomy for reproductive-aged women with early-stage cervical cancer: minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy.
    Matsuo K; Chen L; Mandelbaum RS; Melamed A; Roman LD; Wright JD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 May; 220(5):469.e1-469.e13. PubMed ID: 30802438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Trends and comparative effectiveness of inpatient radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States (2012-2015).
    Uppal S; Rebecca Liu J; Kevin Reynolds R; Rice LW; Spencer RJ
    Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Jan; 152(1):133-138. PubMed ID: 30424895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer.
    Shah CA; Beck T; Liao JB; Giannakopoulos NV; Veljovich D; Paley P
    J Gynecol Oncol; 2017 Nov; 28(6):e82. PubMed ID: 29027400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Perioperative Outcomes of 3-Arm Versus 4-Arm Robotic Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer.
    Yim GW; Eoh KJ; Chung YS; Kim SW; Kim S; Nam EJ; Lee JY; Kim YT
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018; 25(5):823-831. PubMed ID: 29287717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Minimally invasive hysterectomy surgery rates for endometrial cancer performed at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Centers.
    Bergstrom J; Aloisi A; Armbruster S; Yen TT; Casarin J; Leitao MM; Tanner EJ; Matsuno R; Machado KK; Dowdy SC; Soliman PT; Wethington SL; Stone RL; Levinson KL; Fader AN
    Gynecol Oncol; 2018 Mar; 148(3):480-484. PubMed ID: 29338923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.
    Matanes E; Abitbol J; Kessous R; Kogan L; Octeau D; Lau S; Salvador S; Gotlieb WH
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2019 Apr; 41(4):450-458. PubMed ID: 30529223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Regional trends of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and exploration of perioperative outcomes.
    Holtzman S; Chaoul J; Finkelstein M; Kolev V; Zakashansky K
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2022 Apr; 77():102095. PubMed ID: 35078009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer: Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery position statement.
    Kim M; Kong TW; Kim S; Kim SC; Kim YB; Kim JW; Park JY; Suh DH; Shim SH; Lee KH; Lee SJ; Lee JK; Lim MC
    J Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Sep; 30(5):e104. PubMed ID: 31328466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.
    Lowe MP; Chamberlain DH; Kamelle SA; Johnson PR; Tillmanns TD
    Gynecol Oncol; 2009 May; 113(2):191-4. PubMed ID: 19249082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
    Kim S; Min KJ; Lee S; Hong JH; Song JY; Lee JK; Lee NW
    Asian J Surg; 2021 Jan; 44(1):174-180. PubMed ID: 32467009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of abdominal and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.
    Kim SI; Lee J; Hong J; Lee SJ; Park DC; Yoon JH
    Int J Med Sci; 2021; 18(5):1312-1317. PubMed ID: 33526992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer.
    Chiva L; Zanagnolo V; Querleu D; Martin-Calvo N; Arévalo-Serrano J; Căpîlna ME; Fagotti A; Kucukmetin A; Mom C; Chakalova G; Aliyev S; Malzoni M; Narducci F; Arencibia O; Raspagliesi F; Toptas T; Cibula D; Kaidarova D; Meydanli MM; Tavares M; Golub D; Perrone AM; Poka R; Tsolakidis D; Vujić G; Jedryka MA; Zusterzeel PLM; Beltman JJ; Goffin F; Haidopoulos D; Haller H; Jach R; Yezhova I; Berlev I; Bernardino M; Bharathan R; Lanner M; Maenpaa MM; Sukhin V; Feron JG; Fruscio R; Kukk K; Ponce J; Minguez JA; Vázquez-Vicente D; Castellanos T; Chacon E; Alcazar JL;
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Sep; 30(9):1269-1277. PubMed ID: 32788262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Minimal-invasive or open approach for surgery of early cervical cancer: the treatment center matters.
    Gennari P; Gerken M; Mészáros J; Klinkhammer-Schalke M; Ortmann O; Eggemann H; Ignatov A
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2021 Aug; 304(2):503-510. PubMed ID: 33483846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements after minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer: a comparison between laparoscopy and robotic surgery.
    Soliman PT; Langley G; Munsell MF; Vaniya HA; Frumovitz M; Ramirez PT
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2013 Apr; 20(4):1355-9. PubMed ID: 23054117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Does Surgical Teaching Take Time? Resident Participation in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer.
    Freeman AH; Barrie A; Lyon L; Conell C; Garcia C; Littell RD; Powell CB
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017; 24(5):783-789. PubMed ID: 28336363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer.
    Lim PC; Kang E; Park DH
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010; 17(6):739-48. PubMed ID: 20955983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Telelap ALF-X vs Standard Laparoscopy for the Treatment of Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Single-Institution Retrospective Cohort Study.
    Gueli Alletti S; Rossitto C; Cianci S; Restaino S; Costantini B; Fanfani F; Fagotti A; Cosentino F; Scambia G
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(3):378-83. PubMed ID: 26602025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach.
    Brandt B; Levin G; Leitao MM
    Curr Treat Options Oncol; 2022 Jan; 23(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 35167007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Predictors of Overnight Admission after Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy in the Expert Setting.
    Moawad G; Tyan P; Vargas V; Park D; Young H; Marfori C
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019 Jan; 26(1):122-128. PubMed ID: 29723642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.