319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31898100)
21. A comparison of stages IB1 and IB2 cervical cancers treated with radical hysterectomy. Is size the real difference?
Rutledge TL; Kamelle SA; Tillmanns TD; Gould NS; Wright JD; Cohn DE; Herzog TJ; Rader JS; Gold MA; Johnson GA; Walker JL; Mannel RS; McMeekin DS
Gynecol Oncol; 2004 Oct; 95(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 15385112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in stage I a2- II a2 cervical cancer: a matched cohort study].
Wang W; Shang C; Huang J; Chen S; Shen H; Yao S
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Dec; 50(12):894-901. PubMed ID: 26887872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer.
Kanao H; Matsuo K; Aoki Y; Tanigawa T; Nomura H; Okamoto S; Takeshima N
J Gynecol Oncol; 2019 May; 30(3):e71. PubMed ID: 30887768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. [Comparative analysis of the prognosis of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing laparoscopic or abdominal surgery].
Xu YP; Wang ZQ; Liang XD; Wang Y; Wang JL
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2020 Sep; 55(9):609-616. PubMed ID: 32957749
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Predictors of recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A multi-institutional study.
Casarin J; Buda A; Bogani G; Fanfani F; Papadia A; Ceccaroni M; Malzoni M; Pellegrino A; Ferrari F; Greggi S; Uccella S; Pinelli C; Cromi A; Ditto A; Di Martino G; Anchora LP; Falcone F; Bonfiglio F; Odicino F; Mueller M; Scambia G; Raspagliesi F; Landoni F; Ghezzi F
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Oct; 159(1):164-170. PubMed ID: 32665147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Cervical conization before primary radical hysterectomy has a protective effect on disease recurrence in early cervical cancer: A two-center matched cohort study according to surgical approach.
Kim SI; Choi BR; Kim HS; Chung HH; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS; Choi CH; Lee M
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Mar; 164(3):535-542. PubMed ID: 34969535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Lymph Node Ratio Is a Strong Prognostic Factor in Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Undergoing Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy.
Kim SI; Kim TH; Lee M; Kim HS; Chung HH; Lee TS; Jeon HW; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS
Yonsei Med J; 2021 Mar; 62(3):231-239. PubMed ID: 33635013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
Cusimano MC; Baxter NN; Gien LT; Moineddin R; Liu N; Dossa F; Willows K; Ferguson SE
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Dec; 221(6):619.e1-619.e24. PubMed ID: 31288006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China.
Chao X; Li L; Wu M; Ma S; Tan X; Zhong S; Lang J; Cheng A; Li W
BMJ Open; 2019 Jul; 9(7):e029055. PubMed ID: 31362966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Postoperative nomogram for the prediction of disease-free survival in lymph node-negative stage I-IIA cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy.
Gülseren V; Kocaer M; Çakır İ; Özdemir İA; Sancı M; Güngördük K
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Jul; 40(5):699-704. PubMed ID: 31607197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.
Chen B; Ji M; Li P; Liu P; Zou W; Zhao Z; Qu B; Li Z; Bin X; Lang J; Wang H; Chen C
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 May; 157(2):429-436. PubMed ID: 32067814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Minimally invasive surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer: an analysis of the risk factors of surgical complications and of oncologic outcomes.
Garabedian C; Merlot B; Bresson L; Tresch E; Narducci F; Leblanc E
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2015 May; 25(4):714-21. PubMed ID: 25647258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Investigating the possible impact of peritoneal tumor exposure amongst women with early stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive approach.
Pedone Anchora L; Bizzarri N; Kucukmetin A; Turco LC; Gallotta V; Carbone V; Rundle S; Ratnavelu N; Cosentino F; Chiantera V; Fagotti A; Fedele C; Gomes N; Ferrandina G; Scambia G
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2021 May; 47(5):1090-1097. PubMed ID: 33039294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Comparison of the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer].
He HY; Yang ZJ; Zeng DY; Yao DS; Fan JT; Zhao RF; Zhang JQ; Hu XX; Lin Z; Jiang YM; Li L
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2017 Jun; 39(6):458-466. PubMed ID: 28635237
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?
Nica A; Kim SR; Gien LT; Covens A; Bernardini MQ; Bouchard-Fortier G; Kupets R; May T; Vicus D; Laframboise S; Hogen L; Cusimano MC; Ferguson SE
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Dec; 30(12):1864-1870. PubMed ID: 33037109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: A two-center retrospective cohort study with pathologic review of usual-type adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma.
Kim Y; Kim SI; Kim H; Lee M; Kim HS; Kim K; Chung HH; No JH; Kim YB; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS; Lee C; Suh DH
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Oct; 167(1):28-36. PubMed ID: 35970602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Hazard Ratio Analysis of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for IA1 With LVSI-IIA2 Cervical Cancer: Identifying the Possible Contraindications of Laparoscopic Surgery for Cervical Cancer.
Li P; Liu P; Yang Y; Wang L; Liu J; Bin X; Lang J; Chen C
Front Oncol; 2020; 10():1002. PubMed ID: 32733796
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
