160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33415438)
1. Does the appearance of the cutaneous scar after cesarean section reflect the residual myometrial thickness?
Al Naimi A; Mouzakiti N; Eißmann C; Louwen F; Bahlmann F
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2021 Mar; 303(3):847-851. PubMed ID: 33415438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Standardized ultrasonographic approach for the assessment of risk factors of incomplete healing of the cesarean section scar in the uterus.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Oct; 205():141-5. PubMed ID: 27591715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Morphology of the cesarean section scar in the non-pregnant uterus after one elective cesarean section.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(4):174-179. PubMed ID: 28509317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing lateral uterine wall defects and residual myometrial thickness after cesarean section.
Al Naimi A; Mouzakiti N; Wolnicki B; Louwen F; Bahlmann F
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2021 Mar; 258():391-395. PubMed ID: 33540191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. First and Third Trimester Uterine Scar Thickness in Women With Previous Caesarean: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Paquette K; Markey S; Roberge S; Girard M; Bujold E; Demers S
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2019 Jan; 41(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 30316720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The association between gynecological complaints and the uterine sonographic features in women with a history of cesarean section.
Kellner H; Horky A; Louwen F; Bahlmann F; Al Naimi A
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2024 Jul; 310(1):485-491. PubMed ID: 38695973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Anatomy of the sonographic post-cesarean uterus.
Al Naimi A; Wolnicki B; Mouzakiti N; Reinbach T; Louwen F; Bahlmann F
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2021 Dec; 304(6):1485-1491. PubMed ID: 33891206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in assessment of the impact of selected obstetric risk factors on cesarean scar niche formation: the case-controlled study.
Budny-Winska J; Zimmer-Stelmach A; Pomorski M
Ginekol Pol; 2021; 92(5):378-382. PubMed ID: 33757154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prediction of uterine dehiscence using ultrasonographic parameters of cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus: a prospective observational study.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Zimmer M
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2014 Oct; 14():365. PubMed ID: 25733122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial.
Roberge S; Demers S; Girard M; Vikhareva O; Markey S; Chaillet N; Moore L; Paris G; Bujold E
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Apr; 214(4):507.e1-507.e6. PubMed ID: 26522861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impact of selected risk factors on uterine healing after cesarean section in women with single-layer uterine closure: A prospective study using two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography.
Budny-Wińska J; Zimmer-Stelmach A; Pomorski M
Adv Clin Exp Med; 2022 Jan; 31(1):41-48. PubMed ID: 34738347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cesarean Scar Thickness Decreases during Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Kliucinskas M; Paskauskas S
Medicina (Kaunas); 2022 Mar; 58(3):. PubMed ID: 35334583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study.
Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Aug; 42(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 23288683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of the onset of labor on the characteristics of the cesarean scar.
Al Naimi A; Jennewein L; Mouzakiti N; Louwen F; Bahlmann F
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2022 May; 157(2):322-326. PubMed ID: 34077556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of purse-string uterine suture on scar healing after a cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
Halouani A; Dimassi K; Ben Mansour A; Triki A
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2023 Jul; 5(7):100992. PubMed ID: 37127211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Transvaginal Sonographic Evaluation of Cesarean Section Scar Niche in Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Paskauskas S; Ramoniene G; Nadisauskiene RJ
Medicina (Kaunas); 2021 Oct; 57(10):. PubMed ID: 34684128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Changes in Cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study.
Naji O; Daemen A; Smith A; Abdallah Y; Saso S; Stalder C; Sayasneh A; McIndoe A; Ghaem-Maghami S; Timmerman D; Bourne T
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 May; 41(5):556-62. PubMed ID: 23108803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cesarean section scar measurements in non-pregnant women using three-dimensional ultrasound: a repeatability study.
Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Jun; 201():65-9. PubMed ID: 27064944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Stegwee SI; Jordans I; van der Voet LF; van de Ven PM; Ket J; Lambalk CB; de Groot C; Hehenkamp W; Huirne J
BJOG; 2018 Aug; 125(9):1097-1108. PubMed ID: 29215795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sonographic evaluation of surgical repair of uterine cesarean scar defects.
Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
J Clin Ultrasound; 2017 Oct; 45(8):455-460. PubMed ID: 28186617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
