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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

366 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34625835)

  • 1. Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy.
    Kampers J; Gerhardt E; Sibbertsen P; Flock T; Hertel H; Klapdor R; Jentschke M; Hillemanns P
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Aug; 306(2):295-314. PubMed ID: 34625835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups.
    Kampers J; Gerhardt E; Sibbertsen P; Flock T; Klapdor R; Hertel H; Jentschke M; Hillemanns P
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2021 Sep; 304(3):577-587. PubMed ID: 34021804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Park DA; Yun JE; Kim SW; Lee SH
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2017 Jun; 43(6):994-1002. PubMed ID: 27546015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Comparative safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Park DA; Lee DH; Kim SW; Lee SH
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2016 Sep; 42(9):1303-14. PubMed ID: 27439723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
    Jin YM; Liu SS; Chen J; Chen YN; Ren CC
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(3):e0193033. PubMed ID: 29554090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.
    Aarts JW; Nieboer TE; Johnson N; Tavender E; Garry R; Mol BW; Kluivers KB
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Aug; 2015(8):CD003677. PubMed ID: 26264829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study.
    Corrado G; Fanfani F; Ghezzi F; Fagotti A; Uccella S; Mancini E; Sperduti I; Stevenazzi G; Scambia G; Vizza E
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2015 Jan; 41(1):136-41. PubMed ID: 25468748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer.
    Vázquez-Vicente D; Boria F; Castellanos T; Gutierrez M; Chacon E; Manzour N; Minguez JA; Martin-Calvo N; Alcazar JL; Chiva L;
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2024 Feb; 34(2):203-208. PubMed ID: 38669163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.
    Marchand G; Masoud AT; Abdelsattar A; King A; Ulibarri H; Parise J; Arroyo A; Coriell C; Goetz S; Moir C; Moberly A; Govindan M
    Sci Rep; 2023 Jan; 13(1):273. PubMed ID: 36609438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies.
    Zhang SS; Ding T; Cui ZH; Lv Y; Jiang RA
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2019 Jan; 98(4):e14171. PubMed ID: 30681582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Li Y; Kong Q; Wei H; Wang Y
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(7):e0253143. PubMed ID: 34197466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer.
    Nezhat FR; Datta MS; Liu C; Chuang L; Zakashansky K
    JSLS; 2008; 12(3):227-37. PubMed ID: 18765043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy using three robotic arms versus conventional multiport laparoscopy in patients with cervical cancer.
    Yim GW; Kim SW; Nam EJ; Kim S; Kim HJ; Kim YT
    Yonsei Med J; 2014 Sep; 55(5):1222-30. PubMed ID: 25048478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: A case matched control study.
    Gallotta V; Conte C; Federico A; Vizzielli G; Gueli Alletti S; Tortorella L; Pedone Anchora L; Cosentino F; Chiantera V; Fagotti A; D'Indinosante M; Pelligra S; Scambia G; Ferrandina G
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2018 Jun; 44(6):754-759. PubMed ID: 29422253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial.
    Falconer H; Palsdottir K; Stalberg K; Dahm-Kähler P; Ottander U; Lundin ES; Wijk L; Kimmig R; Jensen PT; Zahl Eriksson AG; Mäenpää J; Persson J; Salehi S
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2019 Jul; 29(6):1072-1076. PubMed ID: 31203203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of outcomes of laparotomic and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer.
    Chang SH; Huang KG; Yang LY; Pan YB; Lai CH; Chou HH
    J Gynecol Oncol; 2024 Sep; 35(5):e60. PubMed ID: 38425140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The incidence of perioperative lymphatic complications after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy between robotic and laparoscopic approach : a systemic review and meta-analysis.
    Hwang JH; Kim BW
    Int J Surg; 2023 Aug; 109(8):2478-2485. PubMed ID: 37195800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Shazly SA; Murad MH; Dowdy SC; Gostout BS; Famuyide AO
    Gynecol Oncol; 2015 Aug; 138(2):457-71. PubMed ID: 26056752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.