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.
167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33587163)
1. Is robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy safe and effective in women over 65 years of age? Sanci A; Akpinar C; Gokce MI; Süer E; Gülpinar O Int Urogynecol J; 2021 Aug; 32(8):2211-2217. PubMed ID: 33587163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Long-Term Outcomes After Ventral Rectopexy With Sacrocolpo- or Hysteropexy for the Treatment of Concurrent Rectal and Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Jallad K; Ridgeway B; Paraiso MFR; Gurland B; Unger CA Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(5):336-340. PubMed ID: 28657998 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Robotic-assisted apical lateral suspension for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and perioperative outcomes. Simoncini T; Russo E; Mannella P; Giannini A Surg Endosc; 2016 Dec; 30(12):5647-5655. PubMed ID: 27287895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Perioperative Outcomes, Complications, and Efficacy of Robotic-Assisted Prolapse Repair: A Single Institution Study of 196 Patients. Gupta P; Ehlert M; Bartley J; Gilleran J; Killinger KA; Boura JA; Nagaraju P; Fischer M Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(6):408-411. PubMed ID: 28922303 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpo(recto)pexy: a cumulative sum analysis. van Zanten F; Schraffordt Koops SE; Pasker-De Jong PCM; Lenters E; Schreuder HWR Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Nov; 221(5):483.e1-483.e11. PubMed ID: 31152711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Postoperative adverse events and re-treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Shigemi D; Okada A; Yasunaga H Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2023 Apr; 161(1):114-119. PubMed ID: 36200666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of midterm surgical and quality of life outcomes. Barboglio PG; Toler AJ; Triaca V Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2014; 20(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 24368487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Lee RK; Mottrie A; Payne CK; Waltregny D Eur Urol; 2014 Jun; 65(6):1128-37. PubMed ID: 24433811 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Perioperative, postoperative and anatomical outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Kilic GS; Lee T; Lewis K; Demirkiran C; Dursun F; Unlu BS J Obstet Gynaecol; 2021 May; 41(4):651-654. PubMed ID: 33045854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for High-stage Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-center Study. Illiano E; Ditonno P; Giannitsas K; De Rienzo G; Bini V; Costantini E Urology; 2019 Dec; 134():116-123. PubMed ID: 31563536 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Anchor vs suture for the attachment of vaginal mesh in a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial. Berger AA; Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):258.e1-258.e8. PubMed ID: 32413431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Costantini E; Mearini L; Lazzeri M; Bini V; Nunzi E; di Biase M; Porena M J Urol; 2016 Jul; 196(1):159-65. PubMed ID: 26780167 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. First report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy: Single site using the da Vinci Xi or Si system and single port using the da Vinci SP system. Lee SR; Roh AM; Jeong K; Kim SH; Chae HD; Moon HS Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Jan; 60(1):60-65. PubMed ID: 33495010 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Tension-free vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: Analysis of perioperative outcomes using a Japanese national inpatient database. Obinata D; Sugihara T; Yasunaga H; Mochida J; Yamaguchi K; Murata Y; Yoshizawa T; Matsui T; Matsui H; Sasabuchi Y; Fujimura T; Homma Y; Takahashi S Int J Urol; 2018 Jul; 25(7):655-659. PubMed ID: 29729035 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reoperation After Robotic and Vaginal Mesh Reconstructive Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Martin LA; Calixte R; Finamore PS Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2015; 21(6):315-8. PubMed ID: 26506158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]