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 *

288 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34738347)

  • 1. Impact of selected risk factors on uterine healing after cesarean section in women with single-layer uterine closure: A prospective study using two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography.
    Budny-Wińska J; Zimmer-Stelmach A; Pomorski M
    Adv Clin Exp Med; 2022 Jan; 31(1):41-48. PubMed ID: 34738347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in assessment of the impact of selected obstetric risk factors on cesarean scar niche formation: the case-controlled study.
    Budny-Winska J; Zimmer-Stelmach A; Pomorski M
    Ginekol Pol; 2021; 92(5):378-382. PubMed ID: 33757154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial.
    Roberge S; Demers S; Girard M; Vikhareva O; Markey S; Chaillet N; Moore L; Paris G; Bujold E
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Apr; 214(4):507.e1-507.e6. PubMed ID: 26522861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Transvaginal Sonographic Evaluation of Cesarean Section Scar Niche in Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
    Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Paskauskas S; Ramoniene G; Nadisauskiene RJ
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2021 Oct; 57(10):. PubMed ID: 34684128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Standardized ultrasonographic approach for the assessment of risk factors of incomplete healing of the cesarean section scar in the uterus.
    Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Oct; 205():141-5. PubMed ID: 27591715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Morphology of the cesarean section scar in the non-pregnant uterus after one elective cesarean section.
    Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Rosner-Tenerowicz A; Zimmer M
    Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(4):174-179. PubMed ID: 28509317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.
    Hanacek J; Vojtech J; Urbankova I; Krcmar M; Křepelka P; Feyereisl J; Krofta L
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2020 Jan; 99(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 31441500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial.
    Maki J; Mitoma T; Ooba H; Nakato H; Mishima S; Tani K; Eto E; Yamamoto D; Yamamoto R; Kai K; Tamada T; Akamatsu K; Kawanishi K; Masuyama H
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2024 Sep; 6(9):101431. PubMed ID: 39019212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery.
    Sevket O; Ates S; Molla T; Ozkal F; Uysal O; Dansuk R
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2014 Jun; 125(3):219-22. PubMed ID: 24680843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Single- versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development - the 2Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
    Stegwee SI; Jordans IPM; van der Voet LF; Bongers MY; de Groot CJM; Lambalk CB; de Leeuw RA; Hehenkamp WJK; van de Ven PM; Bosmans JE; Pajkrt E; Bakkum EA; Radder CM; Hemelaar M; van Baal WM; Visser H; van Laar JOEH; van Vliet HAAM; Rijnders RJP; Sueters M; Janssen CAH; Hermes W; Feitsma AH; Kapiteijn K; Scheepers HCJ; Langenveld J; de Boer K; Coppus SFPJ; Schippers DH; Oei ALM; Kaplan M; Papatsonis DNM; de Vleeschouwer LHM; van Beek E; Bekker MN; Huisjes AJM; Meijer WJ; Deurloo KL; Boormans EMA; van Eijndhoven HWF; Huirne JAF
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2019 Mar; 19(1):85. PubMed ID: 30832681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Stegwee SI; Jordans I; van der Voet LF; van de Ven PM; Ket J; Lambalk CB; de Groot C; Hehenkamp W; Huirne J
    BJOG; 2018 Aug; 125(9):1097-1108. PubMed ID: 29215795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer hysterotomy closure: a prospective cross-sectional study.
    Tekiner NB; Çetin BA; Türkgeldi LS; Yılmaz G; Polat İ; Gedikbaşı A
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2018 May; 297(5):1137-1143. PubMed ID: 29397441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The association of endometrial closure during cesarean section to the risk of developing uterine scar defect: a randomized control trial.
    Mohr-Sasson A; Castel E; Dadon T; Brandt A; Etinger R; Cohen A; Zajicek M; Haas J; Mashiach R
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2024 May; 309(5):2063-2070. PubMed ID: 38498161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact of purse-string uterine suture on scar healing after a cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
    Halouani A; Dimassi K; Ben Mansour A; Triki A
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2023 Jul; 5(7):100992. PubMed ID: 37127211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cesarean Scar Thickness Decreases during Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
    Savukyne E; Machtejeviene E; Kliucinskas M; Paskauskas S
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2022 Mar; 58(3):. PubMed ID: 35334583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cesarean section scar measurements in non-pregnant women using three-dimensional ultrasound: a repeatability study.
    Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Jun; 201():65-9. PubMed ID: 27064944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after single- or double-layer uterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial.
    Bamberg C; Hinkson L; Dudenhausen JW; Bujak V; Kalache KD; Henrich W
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2017 Dec; 96(12):1484-1489. PubMed ID: 28832909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prediction of uterine dehiscence using ultrasonographic parameters of cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus: a prospective observational study.
    Pomorski M; Fuchs T; Zimmer M
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2014 Oct; 14():365. PubMed ID: 25733122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study.
    Glavind J; Madsen LD; Uldbjerg N; Dueholm M
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Aug; 42(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 23288683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A; Saccone G; McCurdy R; Bujold E; Bifulco G; Berghella V
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Nov; 50(5):578-583. PubMed ID: 28070914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.