239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30807407)
1. Uterosacral Ligament Suspension Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Smith BC; Crisp CC; Kleeman SD; Yook E; Pauls RN
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2019; 25(2):93-98. PubMed ID: 30807407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. RCT of vaginal extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension (VEULS) with anterior mesh versus sacrocolpopexy: 4-year outcome.
Ow LL; Lim YN; Lee J; Murray C; Thomas E; Leitch A; Rosamilia A; Dwyer PL
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Nov; 29(11):1607-1614. PubMed ID: 29961110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative Perioperative Pain and Recovery in Women Undergoing Vaginal Reconstruction Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.
Westermann LB; Crisp CC; Mazloomdoost D; Kleeman SD; Pauls RN
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(2):95-100. PubMed ID: 28067743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Long-term effectiveness of transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension].
Duan L; Lu YX; Shen WJ; Liu X; Liu JX; Zhang YH; Ge J; Zhao Y; Niu K; Wang WY
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2017 Jun; 52(6):363-368. PubMed ID: 28647957
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse.
Matanes E; Boulus S; Lauterbach R; Amit A; Weiner Z; Lowenstein L
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Apr; 222(4):358.e1-358.e11. PubMed ID: 31589864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Vaginal versus robotic hysterectomy and concomitant pelvic support surgery: a comparison of postoperative vaginal length and sexual function.
De La Cruz JF; Myers EM; Geller EJ
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2014; 21(6):1010-4. PubMed ID: 24780383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Associating genital hiatus size with long-term outcomes after apical suspension.
Hill AM; Shatkin-Margolis A; Smith BC; Pauls RN
Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Aug; 31(8):1537-1544. PubMed ID: 31776617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
Nguyen JN; Yang ST
J Robot Surg; 2020 Jun; 14(3):415-421. PubMed ID: 31332703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. High uterosacral vault suspension vs Sacrocolpopexy for treating apical defects: a randomized controlled trial with twelve months follow-up.
Rondini C; Braun H; Alvarez J; Urzúa MJ; Villegas R; Wenzel C; Descouvieres C
Int Urogynecol J; 2015 Aug; 26(8):1131-8. PubMed ID: 25910610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. National Analysis of Perioperative Morbidity of Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.
Chapman GC; Slopnick EA; Roberts K; Sheyn D; Wherley S; Mahajan ST; Pollard RR
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Feb; 28(2):275-281. PubMed ID: 32450226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage.
Lavelle ES; Giugale LE; Winger DG; Wang L; Carter-Brooks CM; Shepherd JP
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jan; 218(1):116.e1-116.e5. PubMed ID: 28951262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Single incision anterior apical mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation in pelvic prolapse surgery at 36 months follow-up.
Lo TS; Al-Kharabsheh AM; Tan YL; Pue LB; Hsieh WC; Uy-Patrimonio MC
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Dec; 56(6):793-800. PubMed ID: 29241922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy: results and complications.
Filmar GA; Fisher HW; Aranda E; Lotze PM
Int Urogynecol J; 2014 Dec; 25(12):1645-53. PubMed ID: 24819328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Symptom Relief and Retreatment After Vaginal, Open, or Robotic Surgery for Apical Vaginal Prolapse.
Anand M; Weaver AL; Fruth KM; Trabuco EC; Gebhart JB
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(5):297-309. PubMed ID: 28118173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Long-term outcomes of the high vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension in treatment of the severe pelvic organ prolapse].
Lu YX; Wang J; Shen WJ; Zhang YH; Liu JX; Zhao Y; Ge J; Niu K; Wang WY
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2013 Aug; 48(8):564-9. PubMed ID: 24199919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Recurrent apical prolapse after high uterosacral ligament suspension - in a heterogenous cohort characterised by a high prevalence of previous pelvic operations.
Pedersen KD; Storkholm MH; Bek KM; Glavind-Kristensen M; Greisen S
BMC Womens Health; 2019 Jul; 19(1):96. PubMed ID: 31299946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Long-term outcomes and predictors of failure after surgery for stage IV apical pelvic organ prolapse.
Linder BJ; El-Nashar SA; Mukwege AA; Weaver AL; McGree ME; Rhodes DJ; Gebhart JB; Klingele CJ; Occhino JA; Trabuco EC
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Jun; 29(6):803-810. PubMed ID: 28921036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.
Houlihan S; Kim-Fine S; Birch C; Tang S; Brennand EA
Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Apr; 30(4):611-621. PubMed ID: 30393822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature.
Douligeris A; Kathopoulis N; Zachariou E; Mortaki A; Zacharakis D; Kypriotis K; Chatzipapas I; Protopapas A
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 Jun; 31(6):477-487. PubMed ID: 38493827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
