181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34722059)
1. The Role of Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Rountis A; Zacharakis D; Athanasiou S; Kathopoulis N; Grigoriadis T
Cureus; 2021 Sep; 13(9):e18281. PubMed ID: 34722059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.
Meriwether KV; Antosh DD; Olivera CK; Kim-Fine S; Balk EM; Murphy M; Grimes CL; Sleemi A; Singh R; Dieter AA; Crisp CC; Rahn DD
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Aug; 219(2):129-146.e2. PubMed ID: 29353031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mesh-Free Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension during Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Uterine Prolapse.
Jan H; Ghai V; Doumouchtsis SK
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018; 25(6):952-953. PubMed ID: 29274382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Comparison of laparoscopic techniques for apical organ prolapse repair - a systematic review of the literature.
Szymczak P; Grzybowska ME; Wydra DG
Neurourol Urodyn; 2019 Nov; 38(8):2031-2050. PubMed ID: 31452267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of Different Laparoscopic Sacropexy Procedures for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis.
Yan L; Lu S; Zhao C; Lei L; Liu L
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2023 Apr; 30(4):300-307. PubMed ID: 36563872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation.
Sato H; Otsuka S; Abe H; Tsukada S
Int Urogynecol J; 2023 Sep; 34(9):2217-2224. PubMed ID: 37052646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension with uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective cohort study.
Li C; Shu H; Dai Z
Int J Surg; 2018 Jun; 54(Pt A):28-34. PubMed ID: 29673691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. McCall culdoplasty vs. vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of advanced uterine prolapse: A randomized controlled study.
Karadag B; Mulayim B; Karadag C; Akdaş BA; Karataş S; Yüksel BA; Tatar SA
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Mar; 62(2):325-329. PubMed ID: 36965902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case-Control Study.
Campagna G; Vacca L; Panico G; Vizzielli G; Caramazza D; Zaccoletti R; Marturano M; Granese R; Arcieri M; Cianci S; Scambia G; Ercoli A
Front Med (Lausanne); 2022; 9():853694. PubMed ID: 35308533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Short and middle-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacropolpopexy.
Aydın S; Ateş S; Gökmen Karasu AF; Arıoğlu Ç
Low Urin Tract Symptoms; 2021 Apr; 13(2):291-298. PubMed ID: 33289346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Risk factors of lower urinary tract injury with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
Welch EK; Dengler KL; Guirguis M; Strauchon C; Olsen C; Von Pechmann W
AJOG Glob Rep; 2022 Feb; 2(1):100035. PubMed ID: 36274961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The effect of hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy on the outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Mao M; Fu H; Wang Q; Bai J; Zhang Y; Guo R
Maturitas; 2023 Apr; 170():58-63. PubMed ID: 36773501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Li C; Dai Z; Shu H
Trials; 2018 Mar; 19(1):160. PubMed ID: 29506566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Laparoscopic Pectopexy with Burch Colposuspension for Pelvic Prolapse Associated with Stress Urinary Incontinence.
Pirtea L; Balint O; Secoșan C; Grigoraș D; Ilina R
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020; 27(5):1023-1024. PubMed ID: 31683027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
