159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34705269)
1. A retrospective cohort study of tubal occlusion or salpingectomy for permanent contraception in Australia.
Baltus T; Brown J; Kapurubandara S
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2022 Apr; 62(2):312-318. PubMed ID: 34705269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy vs tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery.
Venkatesh KK; Clark LH; Stamilio DM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Jan; 220(1):106.e1-106.e10. PubMed ID: 30170036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Salpingectomy versus Tubal Occlusion for Permanent Contraception during Cesarean Delivery: Outcomes and Physician Attitudes.
Levy D; Casey S; Zemtsov G; Whiteside JL
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Apr; 28(4):860-864. PubMed ID: 32745622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The Role of Opportunistic Bilateral Salpingectomy vs Tubal Occlusion or Ligation for Ovarian Cancer Prophylaxis.
Ely LK; Truong M
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017; 24(3):371-378. PubMed ID: 28087480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparing options for females seeking permanent contraception in high resource countries: a systematic review.
Gormley R; Vickers B; Cheng B; Norman WV
Reprod Health; 2021 Jul; 18(1):154. PubMed ID: 34284794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Opportunistic salpingectomy during postpartum contraception procedures at elective and unscheduled cesarean delivery.
Ferrari F; Forte S; Prefumo F; Sartori E; Odicino F
Contraception; 2019 Jun; 99(6):373-376. PubMed ID: 30898658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Trend, Feasibility, and Safety of Salpingectomy as a form of Permanent Sterilization.
Kim AJ; Barberio A; Berens P; Chen HY; Gants S; Swilinski L; Acholonu U; Chang-Jackson SC
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(7):1363-1368. PubMed ID: 30771489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention.
McAlpine JN; Hanley GE; Woo MM; Tone AA; Rozenberg N; Swenerton KD; Gilks CB; Finlayson SJ; Huntsman DG; Miller DM;
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 May; 210(5):471.e1-11. PubMed ID: 24412119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Women's preferences for permanent contraception method and willingness to be randomized for a hypothetical trial.
Piazza A; Schwirian K; Scott F; Wilson MD; Zite NB; Creinin MD
Contraception; 2019 Jan; 99(1):56-60. PubMed ID: 30266212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Salpingectomie bilatérale aux fins de contraception permanente : série de cas et facteurs limitant le changement de pratique.
Ruel-Laliberté J; Binette A; Bertrand A
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2020 Aug; 42(8):948-952. PubMed ID: 32345552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Barriers to salpingectomy for permanent contraception: A qualitative study with obstetricians and gynaecologists.
Obermair HM; Muir G; Gard GB
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2021 Dec; 61(6):973-977. PubMed ID: 34554566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion.
Westberg J; Scott F; Creinin MD
Contraception; 2017 May; 95(5):505-508. PubMed ID: 28232128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Feasibility of Complete Salpingectomy Compared With Standard Postpartum Tubal Ligation at Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Subramaniam A; Blanchard CT; Erickson BK; Szychowski J; Leath CA; Biggio JR; Huh WK
Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jul; 132(1):20-27. PubMed ID: 29889762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Contraception and sterilization selection at delivery among pregnant patients with malignancy.
Harris CA; Mandelbaum RS; Rau AR; Song BB; Klar M; Ouzounian JG; Paulson RJ; Roman LD; Matsuo K
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2024 Apr; 103(4):695-706. PubMed ID: 37578024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Complications after opportunistic salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesarean section: a retrospective cohort study.
Rufin KGA; do Valle HA; McAlpine JN; Elwood C; Hanley GE
Fertil Steril; 2024 Mar; 121(3):531-539. PubMed ID: 38043843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Postpartum Permanent Sterilization: Could Bilateral Salpingectomy Replace Bilateral Tubal Ligation?
Danis RB; Della Badia CR; Richard SD
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016; 23(6):928-32. PubMed ID: 27234430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Benefits and Risks of Bilateral Salpingectomy Compared With Standard Tubal Ligation During Cesarean Delivery for Permanent Postpartum Contraception.
Luke S; Addae-Konadu K; Davidson B; Kuller J; Dotters-Katz S
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2022 Mar; 77(3):167-173. PubMed ID: 35275215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Safety and Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes of Hysteroscopic Tubal Microinserts Versus Laparoscopic Proximal Tubal Occlusion or Salpingectomy for Hydrosalpinges Treatment.
Arora R; Shapiro H; Liu K; Arthur R; Cruickshank B; Sharma P; Glass K; Baratz A; Librach C; Greenblatt EM
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2020 Jun; 42(6):779-786. PubMed ID: 32224160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bilateral salpingectomy as an option of permanent contraception at time of caesarean section: A survey of practice.
Noori N; Edwards L; Anpalagan A; Athavale R; Burling M; Herbst U; Brand A; Kapurubandara S
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2024 Feb; 64(1):72-76. PubMed ID: 37674327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
