219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32272829)
1. Minimally invasive surgery in urogynecology: a comparison of standard laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, percutaneous surgical system, and robotic sacral colpopexy.
Panico G; Campagna G; Vacca L; Caramazza D; Iannone V; Rossitto C; Rumolo V; Scambia G; Ercoli A
Minerva Med; 2021 Aug; 112(4):483-491. PubMed ID: 32272829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study.
Chill HH; Hadizadeh A; Paya-Ten C; Leffelman A; Chang C; Moss NP; Goldberg RP
BMC Womens Health; 2024 Mar; 24(1):173. PubMed ID: 38481283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, single-port and percutaneous hysterectomy: Comparison of perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive approaches in gynecologic surgery.
Rossitto C; Cianci S; Gueli Alletti S; Perrone E; Pizzacalla S; Scambia G
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2017 Sep; 216():125-129. PubMed ID: 28753500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.
Campagna G; Vacca L; Panico G; Rumolo V; Caramazza D; Lombisani A; Rossitto C; Gadonneix P; Scambia G; Ercoli A
Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Feb; 33(2):359-368. PubMed ID: 34132865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Long-Term Effectiveness of Uterosacral Colpopexy and Minimally Invasive Sacral Colpopexy for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Unger CA; Barber MD; Walters MD; Paraiso MFR; Ridgeway B; Jelovsek JE
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(3):188-194. PubMed ID: 27636212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Robotic approaches to prolapse surgery.
Rosenblum N
Curr Opin Urol; 2012 Jul; 22(4):292-6. PubMed ID: 22647648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy.
Dubinskaya A; Hernandez-Aranda D; Wakefield DB; Shepherd JP
Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Feb; 31(2):401-407. PubMed ID: 31256223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Role of robotic surgery on pelvic floor reconstruction.
Giannini A; Russo E; Malacarne E; Cecchi E; Mannella P; Simoncini T
Minerva Ginecol; 2019 Feb; 71(1):4-17. PubMed ID: 30318878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. One-year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh.
Jambusaria LH; Murphy M; Lucente VR
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2015; 21(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 25185594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
Antosh DD; Grotzke SA; McDonald MA; Shveiky D; Park AJ; Gutman RE; Sokol AI
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2012; 18(3):158-61. PubMed ID: 22543767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.
Paek J; Lee M; Kim BW; Kwon Y
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 Apr; 27(4):593-9. PubMed ID: 26514118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Open, laparoscopic, and robotic ureteroneocystotomy for benign and malignant ureteral lesions: a comparison of over 100 minimally invasive cases.
Elsamra SE; Theckumparampil N; Garden B; Alom M; Waingankar N; Leavitt DA; Kreshover J; Schwartz M; Kavoussi LR; Richstone L
J Endourol; 2014 Dec; 28(12):1455-9. PubMed ID: 25390972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cosmetic Appearance of Port-site Scars 1 Year After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Supplementary Study of the ACCESS Clinical Trial.
Mueller ER; Kenton K; Anger JT; Bresee C; Tarnay C
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(6):917-21. PubMed ID: 27180224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
Pan K; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Wang Y; Xu H
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2016 Mar; 132(3):284-91. PubMed ID: 26797199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Robot-assisted laparoscopy for deep infiltrating endometriosis: a retrospective French multicentric study (2008-2019) using the Society of European Robotic Gynecological Surgery endometriosis database.
Saget E; Peschot C; Bonin L; Belghiti J; Boulland E; Ghesquiere L; Golfier F; Hebert T; Kerbage Y; Lavoue V; Merlot B; Motton S; Ternynck C; Vidal F; Gauthier T; Collinet P
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Apr; 305(4):1105-1113. PubMed ID: 35113234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Proctectomy Outcomes: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis.
Hu KY; Wu R; Szabo A; Ridolfi TJ; Ludwig KA; Peterson CY
J Surg Res; 2020 Nov; 255():495-501. PubMed ID: 32622164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Single-port robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with magnetic retraction: first experience using the SP da Vinci platform.
Ganesan V; Goueli R; Rodriguez D; Hess D; Carmel M
J Robot Surg; 2020 Oct; 14(5):753-758. PubMed ID: 32036495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Implementation of a urogynecology-specific enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway.
Carter-Brooks CM; Du AL; Ruppert KM; Romanova AL; Zyczynski HM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):495.e1-495.e10. PubMed ID: 29913175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Laparoscopic and robotic sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up.
Pilka R; Gágyor D; Študentová M; Neubert D; Dzvinčuk P
Ceska Gynekol; 2017; 82(4):261-267. PubMed ID: 28925269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
