162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31360307)
1. Nerve-sparing versus non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: surgical and long-term oncological outcomes.
Gil-Moreno A; Carbonell-Socias M; Salicrú S; Bradbury M; García Á; Vergés R; Puig OP; Sánchez-Iglesias JL; Cabrera-Díaz S; de la Torre J; Gómez-Hidalgo NR; Pérez-Benavente A; Díaz-Feijoo B
Oncotarget; 2019 Jul; 10(44):4598-4608. PubMed ID: 31360307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Feasibility of unilateral or bilateral nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer and evaluation of the post-surgery recovery of the bladder and rectal function].
Zhu T; Yu AJ; Shou HF; Chen X; Zhu JQ; Yang ZY; Zhang P; Gao YL
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2011 Jan; 33(1):53-7. PubMed ID: 21575466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effectiveness and Long-term Outcomes of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.
Yamamoto A; Kamoi S; Ikeda M; Yamada T; Yoneyama K; Takeshita T
J Nippon Med Sch; 2021 Nov; 88(5):386-397. PubMed ID: 32741908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Oncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.
Ditto A; Bogani G; Leone Roberti Maggiore U; Martinelli F; Chiappa V; Lopez C; Perotto S; Lorusso D; Raspagliesi F
J Gynecol Oncol; 2018 May; 29(3):e41. PubMed ID: 29533024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Total laparoscopic vs. conventional open abdominal nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: clinical, surgical, oncological and functional outcomes in 301 patients with cervical cancer.
Ceccaroni M; Roviglione G; Malzoni M; Cosentino F; Spagnolo E; Clarizia R; Casadio P; Seracchioli R; Ghezzi F; Mautone D; Bruni F; Uccella S
J Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Jan; 32(1):e10. PubMed ID: 33300311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Long Y; Yao DS; Pan XW; Ou TY
PLoS One; 2014; 9(4):e94116. PubMed ID: 24748015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Efficacy of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs. conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lee SH; Bae JW; Han M; Cho YJ; Park JW; Oh SR; Kim SJ; Choe SY; Yun JH; Lee Y
Mol Clin Oncol; 2020 Feb; 12(2):160-168. PubMed ID: 31929888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and quality of life.
van Gent MD; Romijn LM; van Santen KE; Trimbos JB; de Kroon CD
Maturitas; 2016 Dec; 94():30-38. PubMed ID: 27823742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Class III nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus standard class III radical hysterectomy: an observational study.
Ditto A; Martinelli F; Mattana F; Reato C; Solima E; Carcangiu M; Haeusler E; Mariani L; Raspagliesi F
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Nov; 18(12):3469-78. PubMed ID: 21556949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.
Li L; Ma S; Tan X; Zhong S; Wu M
Am J Clin Oncol; 2019 Oct; 42(10):783-788. PubMed ID: 31490195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Oncological outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review.
Basaran D; Dusek L; Majek O; Cibula D
Ann Surg Oncol; 2015 Sep; 22(9):3033-40. PubMed ID: 25613389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator in Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy: A Pilot Study.
Hao M; Wang Z; Wei F; Wang J; Wang W; Ping Y
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2016 Mar; 26(3):594-9. PubMed ID: 26807637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Classical radical hysterectomy and nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
Makowski M; Nowak M; Szpakowski M; Władziński J; Serwach-Nowińska A; Janas Ł; Wilczyński JR
Prz Menopauzalny; 2014 Jun; 13(3):180-5. PubMed ID: 26327852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy: a retrospective study].
Ju XZ; Li ZT; Yang HJ; Wu XH
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2009 Aug; 44(8):605-9. PubMed ID: 20003790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Surgical and oncological outcomes of an improved nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy technique: 6 years of experience at two centres.
Yin S; Ma SN; Zhang YQ; Shi TY; Xiang LB; Ren YL; Zang RY
Surg Oncol; 2018 Sep; 27(3):380-386. PubMed ID: 30217291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Lower urinary tract dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy.
Aoun F; van Velthoven R
Int Urogynecol J; 2015 Jul; 26(7):947-57. PubMed ID: 25432634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Efficacy and oncologic safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
Roh JW; Lee DO; Suh DH; Lim MC; Seo SS; Chung J; Lee S; Park SY
J Gynecol Oncol; 2015 Apr; 26(2):90-9. PubMed ID: 25872890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Favorable factors for preserving bladder function after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: A protocol-based validation study.
Kim HS; Kim M; Luo Y; Lee M; Song YS;
J Surg Oncol; 2017 Sep; 116(4):492-499. PubMed ID: 28695641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Urinary tract morbidity after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer.
Novackova M; Pastor Z; Chmel R; Brtnicky T; Chmel R
Int Urogynecol J; 2020 May; 31(5):981-987. PubMed ID: 31444536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Pelvic dysfunctions and quality of life after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a multicenter comparative study.
Ceccaroni M; Roviglione G; Spagnolo E; Casadio P; Clarizia R; Peiretti M; Bruni F; Peters I; Aletti G
Anticancer Res; 2012 Feb; 32(2):581-8. PubMed ID: 22287748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
