159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32576734)
1. Hysterectomy Versus Hysteropexy at the Time of Native Tissue Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Chang OH; Shepherd JP; Ridgeway BM; Cadish LA
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2021 Feb; 27(2):e277-e281. PubMed ID: 32576734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Vaginal hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-year cost-effectiveness Markov model.
Wallace SL; Syan R; Lee K; Sokol ER
BJOG; 2024 Feb; 131(3):362-371. PubMed ID: 37667669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Long-Term Costs of Minimally Invasive Sacral Colpopexy Compared to Native Tissue Vaginal Repair With Concomitant Hysterectomy.
El Haraki AS; Shepherd JP; Matthews CA; Cadish LA
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38705377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Complications After Uterosacral Ligament Suspension Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation at Vaginal Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.
Stairs J; Jain M; Chen I; Clancy A
Urogynecology (Phila); 2022 Dec; 28(12):834-841. PubMed ID: 36409640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence].
Hu CD; Chen YS; Yi XF; Ding JX; Feng WW; Yao LQ; Huang J; Zhang Y; Hu WG; Zhu ZL; Hua KQ
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2011 Feb; 46(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 21426765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
Schulten SFM; Detollenaere RJ; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HWF
BMJ; 2019 Sep; 366():l5149. PubMed ID: 31506252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Longitudinal Reoperation Risk After Apical Prolapse Procedures in Women Aged 65 Years and Older.
Berger AA; Bretschneider CE; Gregory WT; Sung V
Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Mar; 143(3):411-418. PubMed ID: 38227947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-effectiveness of endometrial evaluation prior to morcellation in surgical procedures for prolapse.
McPencow AM; Erekson EA; Guess MK; Martin DK; Patel DA; Xu X
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Jul; 209(1):22.e1-9. PubMed ID: 23545164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.
Topdagi Yilmaz EP; Yapca OE; Topdagi YE; Atakan Al R; Kumtepe Y
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2021 Apr; 50(4):101905. PubMed ID: 32916370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes.
Kapoor S; Sivanesan K; Robertson JA; Veerasingham M; Kapoor V
Int Urogynecol J; 2017 Sep; 28(9):1285-1294. PubMed ID: 28258346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evidence-Based Review of Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse.
Hoke TP; Tan-Kim J; Richter HE
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2019 Jul; 74(7):429-435. PubMed ID: 31343708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Ohno MS; Richardson ML; Sokol ER
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 Feb; 27(2):233-7. PubMed ID: 26282093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy vs Total Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Anterior and Apical Prolapse: Surgical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction.
Haj-Yahya R; Chill HH; Levin G; Reuveni-Salzman A; Shveiky D
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020 Jan; 27(1):88-93. PubMed ID: 30802607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.
Hemming C; Constable L; Goulao B; Kilonzo M; Boyers D; Elders A; Cooper K; Smith A; Freeman R; Breeman S; McDonald A; Hagen S; Montgomery I; Norrie J; Glazener C
Health Technol Assess; 2020 Mar; 24(13):1-220. PubMed ID: 32138809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Bradley S; Gutman RE; Richter LA
Curr Urol Rep; 2018 Feb; 19(2):15. PubMed ID: 29476274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study.
Milani R; Manodoro S; Cola A; Bellante N; Palmieri S; Frigerio M
Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Sep; 31(9):1867-1872. PubMed ID: 31848662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
