187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32745622)
41. Safety of salpingectomy at time of delivery.
Parikh P; Kim S; Hathcock M; Torbenson VE; Raju R
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2021 Sep; 34(17):2765-2770. PubMed ID: 31544559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Nationwide salpingectomy rates for an indication of permanent contraception before and after published practice guidelines.
Polen-De C; Meganathan K; Lang P; Hohmann S; Jackson A; Whiteside JL
Contraception; 2019 Aug; 100(2):111-115. PubMed ID: 31051117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Feasibility, Safety, and Provider Perspectives of Bipolar Electrosurgical Cautery Device for (Opportunistic or Complete) Salpingectomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery.
Ostby SA; Blanchard CT; Sanjanwala AR; Szychowski JM; Leath CA; Huh WK; Subramaniam A
Am J Perinatol; 2024 Apr; 41(6):804-813. PubMed ID: 35728603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Salpingectomie bilatérale aux fins de contraception permanente : série de cas et facteurs limitant le changement de pratique.
Ruel-Laliberté J; Binette A; Bertrand A
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2020 Aug; 42(8):948-952. PubMed ID: 32345552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention.
Dilley SE; Havrilesky LJ; Bakkum-Gamez J; Cohn DE; Michael Straughn J; Caughey AB; Rodriguez MI
Gynecol Oncol; 2017 Aug; 146(2):373-379. PubMed ID: 28577884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Contraception and sterilization selection at delivery among pregnant patients with malignancy.
Harris CA; Mandelbaum RS; Rau AR; Song BB; Klar M; Ouzounian JG; Paulson RJ; Roman LD; Matsuo K
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2024 Apr; 103(4):695-706. PubMed ID: 37578024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation during cesarean delivery.
Du Y
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2018 Nov; 298(5):1037-1038. PubMed ID: 30242497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. The Role of Opportunistic Bilateral Salpingectomy vs Tubal Occlusion or Ligation for Ovarian Cancer Prophylaxis.
Ely LK; Truong M
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017; 24(3):371-378. PubMed ID: 28087480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. The Cost-Effectiveness of Salpingectomies for Family Planning in the Prevention of Ovarian Cancer.
Tai RWM; Choi SKY; Coyte PC
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2018 Mar; 40(3):317-327. PubMed ID: 29054509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Ovarian Reserve and Assisted Reproductive Technique Outcomes After Laparoscopic Proximal Tubal Occlusion or Salpingectomy in Women with Hydrosalpinx Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Vignarajan CP; Malhotra N; Singh N
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(6):1070-1075. PubMed ID: 30366115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Extending the safety evidence for opportunistic salpingectomy in prevention of ovarian cancer: a cohort study from British Columbia, Canada.
Hanley GE; Kwon JS; Finlayson SJ; Huntsman DG; Miller D; McAlpine JN
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Aug; 219(2):172.e1-172.e8. PubMed ID: 29852159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer Type I and II after hysterectomy, salpingectomy and tubal ligation-A nationwide case-control study.
Darelius A; Kristjansdottir B; Dahm-Kähler P; Strandell A
Int J Cancer; 2021 Oct; 149(8):1544-1552. PubMed ID: 34152012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Fertility outcomes after laparoscopic salpingectomy or salpingotomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study of 95 patients.
Chen L; Zhu D; Wu Q; Yu Y
Int J Surg; 2017 Dec; 48():59-63. PubMed ID: 28951291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review.
Gormley R; Vickers B; Norman WV
Syst Rev; 2019 Mar; 8(1):74. PubMed ID: 30914067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Post-ablation tubal sterilization syndrome: Does route of sterilization matter?
Chaves KF; Merriman AL; Hassoun J; Cedó Cintrón LE; Zhao Z; Yunker AC
Contraception; 2022 Mar; 107():17-22. PubMed ID: 34752776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Patients' need for information on permanent contraception during a cesarean section: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
Ida T; Fujiwara H; Taniguchi Y; Kohyama A
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2021 Mar; 47(3):1090-1096. PubMed ID: 33403766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Comparison of morbidity in cesarean section hysterectomy versus cesarean section tubal ligation.
Bey MA; Pastorek JG; Lu PY; Gabert H; Letellier RL; Miller JM
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1993 Oct; 177(4):357-60. PubMed ID: 8211578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Technique for bilateral salpingectomy at the time of Cesarean delivery: a case series.
Duncan JR; Schenone MH; Mari G
Contraception; 2017 May; 95(5):509-511. PubMed ID: 28263747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Intrauterine fluid instillation to confirm tubal occlusion after transcervical permanent contraception: A pilot study
Patil E; Thurmond A; Hart K; Seguin J; Edelman A; Jensen JT
Contraception; 2020 Jan; 101(1):40-45. PubMed ID: 31655066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Efficacy and safety of sterilisation procedures to reduce the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review comparing salpingectomy with tubal ligation.
Magarakis L; Idahl A; Särnqvist C; Strandell A
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2022 Jun; 27(3):230-239. PubMed ID: 34870544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
