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.
199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33857670)
1. Comparison of Trendelenburg Angles in Vaginal, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Uterovaginal Apical Prolapse Repairs. Jaresova A; Warda H; Macharia A; Hacker MR; Li J J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Nov; 28(11):1868-1875. PubMed ID: 33857670 [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. 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]
4. Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Alas AN; Anger JT Curr Urol Rep; 2015 May; 16(5):33. PubMed ID: 25874589 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Long-term reoperation risk after apical prolapse repair in female pelvic reconstructive surgery. Shah NM; Berger AA; Zhuang Z; Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Aug; 227(2):306.e1-306.e16. PubMed ID: 35654112 [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. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Chan SS; Pang SM; Cheung TH; Cheung RY; Chung TK Hong Kong Med J; 2011 Feb; 17(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 21282827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women. Geoffrion R; Larouche M J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2021 Apr; 43(4):511-523.e1. PubMed ID: 33548503 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Positive symptom improvement with laparoscopic uterosacral ligament repair for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse: interim results from an active multicenter trial. Schwartz M; Abbott KR; Glazerman L; Sobolewski C; Jarnagin B; Ailawadi R; Lucente V J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2007; 14(5):570-6. PubMed ID: 17848317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Apical pelvic organ prolapse repair via vaginal-assisted natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: Initial experience from a tertiary care hospital. Alay I; Kaya C; Cengiz H; Yildiz S; Aslan O; Yasar L; Ekin M Asian J Endosc Surg; 2021 Jul; 14(3):346-352. PubMed ID: 32967055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence-based surgery. Parkes IL; Shveiky D J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2014; 21(4):546-57. PubMed ID: 24462593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage. Lavelle ES; Giugale LE; Winger DG; Wang L; Carter-Brooks CM; Shepherd JP Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jan; 218(1):116.e1-116.e5. PubMed ID: 28951262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Surgical Outcomes of Paravaginal Repair After Robotic Sacrocolpopexy. Hoke TP; Goldstein H; Saks EK; Vakili B J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018; 25(5):892-895. PubMed ID: 29371174 [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 uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse. Diwan A; Rardin CR; Strohsnitter WC; Weld A; Rosenblatt P; Kohli N Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 2006 Jan; 17(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 15997364 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Contemporary Use and Techniques of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Robotic Assistance for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Culligan PJ; Saiz CM; Rosenblatt PL Obstet Gynecol; 2022 May; 139(5):922-932. PubMed ID: 35576354 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. Lallemant M; Tresch C; Puyraveau M; Delplanque S; Cosson M; Ramanah R J Robot Surg; 2021 Oct; 15(5):785-792. PubMed ID: 33247428 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Nguyen JN; Yang ST J Robot Surg; 2020 Jun; 14(3):415-421. PubMed ID: 31332703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]