1538 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31589864)
1. 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]
2. Anchor vs suture for the attachment of vaginal mesh in a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial.
Berger AA; Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):258.e1-258.e8. PubMed ID: 32413431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension for apical vaginal prolapse: evaluation of our technique and perioperative outcomes.
Davila HH; Gallo T; Bruce L; Landrey C
J Robot Surg; 2017 Jun; 11(2):171-177. PubMed ID: 27631421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. First report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy: Single site using the da Vinci Xi or Si system and single port using the da Vinci SP system.
Lee SR; Roh AM; Jeong K; Kim SH; Chae HD; Moon HS
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Jan; 60(1):60-65. PubMed ID: 33495010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Transvaginal Single-Port Laparoscopy Sacrocolpopexy.
Chen Y; Li J; Zhang Y; Hua K
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018; 25(4):585-588. PubMed ID: 29107118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for High-stage Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-center Study.
Illiano E; Ditonno P; Giannitsas K; De Rienzo G; Bini V; Costantini E
Urology; 2019 Dec; 134():116-123. PubMed ID: 31563536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Single Port Robotic Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: Our Experience With the First 25 Cases.
Matanes E; Lauterbach R; Mustafa-Mikhail S; Amit A; Wiener Z; Lowenstein L
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(3):e14-e18. PubMed ID: 28134702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of midterm surgical and quality of life outcomes.
Barboglio PG; Toler AJ; Triaca V
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2014; 20(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 24368487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh.
Bataller E; Ros C; Anglès S; Gallego M; Espuña-Pons M; Carmona F
Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Apr; 30(4):545-555. PubMed ID: 29987345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Anatomic Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy and Concurrent Sacrocolpopexy at a Tertiary Care Institution at Initial Adaptation of the Procedure.
Prendergast E; Silver H; Johnson LL; Simon M; Feinglass J; Kielb S; Hairston J; Lewicky-Gaupp C
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2016; 22(1):29-32. PubMed ID: 26680565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Perioperative, postoperative and anatomical outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy.
Kilic GS; Lee T; Lewis K; Demirkiran C; Dursun F; Unlu BS
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2021 May; 41(4):651-654. PubMed ID: 33045854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Perioperative Outcomes, Complications, and Efficacy of Robotic-Assisted Prolapse Repair: A Single Institution Study of 196 Patients.
Gupta P; Ehlert M; Bartley J; Gilleran J; Killinger KA; Boura JA; Nagaraju P; Fischer M
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(6):408-411. PubMed ID: 28922303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Short-term Outcomes of Non-robotic Single-incision Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Surgical Technique.
Liu J; Kohn J; Wu C; Guan Z; Guan X
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020; 27(3):721-727. PubMed ID: 31146027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse, a randomized controlled trial: SALTO-2 trial, study protocol.
Coolen AWM; van IJsselmuiden MN; van Oudheusden AMJ; Veen J; van Eijndhoven HWF; Mol BWJ; Roovers JP; Bongers MY
BMC Womens Health; 2017 Jul; 17(1):52. PubMed ID: 28747206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Serati M; Bogani G; Sorice P; Braga A; Torella M; Salvatore S; Uccella S; Cromi A; Ghezzi F
Eur Urol; 2014 Aug; 66(2):303-18. PubMed ID: 24631406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Unger CA; Paraiso MF; Jelovsek JE; Barber MD; Ridgeway B
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Nov; 211(5):547.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25088866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
