These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33128120)
1. The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer. Basaran D; Leitao MM Ann Surg Oncol; 2021 Jan; 28(1):204-211. PubMed ID: 33128120 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging. Levine MD; Brown J; Crane EK; Tait DL; Naumann RW J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Apr; 28(4):824-828. PubMed ID: 32730990 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. Ramirez PT; Frumovitz M; Pareja R; Lopez A; Vieira M; Ribeiro R; Buda A; Yan X; Shuzhong Y; Chetty N; Isla D; Tamura M; Zhu T; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Asher R; Behan V; Nicklin JL; Coleman RL; Obermair A N Engl J Med; 2018 Nov; 379(20):1895-1904. PubMed ID: 30380365 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy without using uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Li RZ; Sun LF; Li R; Wang HJ BJOG; 2023 Jan; 130(2):176-183. PubMed ID: 36331008 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes. Brandt B; Sioulas V; Basaran D; Kuhn T; LaVigne K; Gardner GJ; Sonoda Y; Chi DS; Long Roche KC; Mueller JJ; Jewell EL; Broach VA; Zivanovic O; Abu-Rustum NR; Leitao MM Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Mar; 156(3):591-597. PubMed ID: 31918996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review. Fusegi A; Kanao H; Tsumura S; Murakami A; Abe A; Aoki Y; Nomura H J Gynecol Oncol; 2023 Jan; 34(1):e5. PubMed ID: 36424702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Obermair A; Asher R; Pareja R; Frumovitz M; Lopez A; Moretti-Marques R; Rendon G; Ribeiro R; Tsunoda A; Behan V; Buda A; Bernadini MQ; Zhao H; Vieira M; Walker J; Spirtos NM; Yao S; Chetty N; Zhu T; Isla D; Tamura M; Nicklin J; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Coleman RL; Salvo G; Ramirez PT Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Mar; 222(3):249.e1-249.e10. PubMed ID: 31586602 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Song YL; Li RZ; Feng BJ; Lu YH; Wang LF; Wang ZY; Pei KG; Sun LF; Li R Eur J Surg Oncol; 2024 Apr; 50(4):108240. PubMed ID: 38457858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Manzour N; Núñez-Cordoba JM; Chiva L; Chacón E; Boria F; Vara-García J; Rodriguez-Velandia YP; Minguez JA; Alcazar JL Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Feb; 164(2):455-460. PubMed ID: 34848071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Medical Advisory Secretariat Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2010; 10(27):1-118. PubMed ID: 23074405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Nitecki R; Ramirez PT; Frumovitz M; Krause KJ; Tergas AI; Wright JD; Rauh-Hain JA; Melamed A JAMA Oncol; 2020 Jul; 6(7):1019-1027. PubMed ID: 32525511 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessing the role of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Bogani G; Di Donato V; Muzii L; Casarin J; Ghezzi F; Malzoni M; Greggi S; Landoni F; Bazzurini L; Zanagnolo V; Multinu F; Angioli R; Plotti F; Caruso G; Fischetti M; Ferrandina G; Palaia I; Benedetti Panici P; Scambia G; Raspagliesi F Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2022 Aug; 275():64-69. PubMed ID: 35753229 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An Australian, single-centre study of surgical management outcomes for early-stage cervical cancer. Weishaupt J; Saidi S; Carter J Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2021 Feb; 61(1):123-127. PubMed ID: 33176013 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China. Hu TWY; Huang Y; Li N; Nie D; Li Z Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Aug; 30(8):1143-1150. PubMed ID: 32571892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Rethinking a common surgery technique for early cervical cancer: Experts are reconsidering the use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy as a treatment for early cervical cancer after multiple studies found that patients who undergo the procedure by either laparoscopy or robotic surgery have poorer outcomes. Printz C Cancer; 2019 Oct; 125(20):3485-3487. PubMed ID: 31557331 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size Nasioudis D; Albright BB; Ko EM; Haggerty AF; Giuntoli Ii RL; Kim SH; Morgan MA; Latif NA Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2021 Jul; 31(7):983-990. PubMed ID: 34016701 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Morbidity and Similar Survival Outcomes Compared With Laparotomy. Diver E; Hinchcliff E; Gockley A; Melamed A; Contrino L; Feldman S; Growdon W J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017; 24(3):402-406. PubMed ID: 28011096 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Thirty-day Postoperative Adverse Events in Minimally Invasive versus Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-stage Cervical Cancer. Kohut AY; Kuhn T; Conrad LB; Chua KJ; Abuelafiya M; Gordon AN; Flowers L; Orfanelli T; Blank S; Khanna N J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 29(7):840-847. PubMed ID: 35405331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]